Updated to include a third article by Andrew Goddard
Helen King ViaMedia.News Marry Me a Little?
Madeleine Davies Church Times The communion of saints
“For All Saints’ and All Souls’ Days, Madeleine Davies reflects on expectations of life after death”
Andrew Goddard Psephizo a series of three articles
1: Discernment and decision following Living in Love and Faith
2: What are the options after Living in Love and Faith?
3: What are the practical implications following Living in Love and Faith?
The three pieces are available together in this PDF document: LLF Discerning and Deciding Psephizo Articles.
In response to Andrew Goddard’s 6 Options for the Church of England: Option 1: “Re-affirm current teaching.” Few Church leaders are suggesting that current church teaching may not remain ONE of the positions which church members hold and get to practise. But the suggestion that it will continue to be the only acceptable position, in a Church divided down the middle… is a TOTAL NON-STARTER. Option 2: “Recognise two or more different views.” CORRECT. It is unrealistic not to recognise this, as there are at least two different views already in the Church of England. Andrew writes: ‘whatever is added… Read more »
(…contd) Option 5: is basically what Option 4 was pointing to, and no, it’s a wholly insufficient proposal. Woah! Suddenly, to ‘protect’ Marriage for straight people only, the Church should affirm sex in Civil Partnerships? So the teaching on sex is provisional for conservatives, and ‘we’ll waive that if you give us heterosexual people marriage for us alone’? That’s dishonest. Option 5 is a NON-STARTER because you are either opposed to gay sex or you’re not. And if you (like half the C o E) are not, then the blessing of Marriage should be for gay and lesbian people, not… Read more »
In response to Andrew Goddard’s excellent article and Susannah Clark’s response, might I suggest, rather than “unity in diversity”, separation. Perhaps along the lines of the Methodist church protocol of reconciliation and grace, or separate provinces within the Church of England.
I tend to agree with Bob, much to my chagrin at disagreeing with the ever-considerate and pastorally-minded Susannah. An amicable separation would probably be more beneficial to both sides. The moment we try to hold contraries together, no matter how theologically valid they are, the more people get caught in the pastoral gap and hurt. If a church can make a clear statement that this is what a potential congregant can expect, then that surely will give them greater assurance. Already there is schism in all but name with the AMiE and ACNA, and that schism will simply not go… Read more »
‘If we believe that all Christians are one eschatologically, then such separation would only be a temporal matter.’
Which, logically, would excuse every conceivable Christian division and excuse us from working toward Christian unity.
Ut unum Sint, eh, Tim? While I appreciate the logic, the question is what you mean by “unity”, and some of the replies below suggest that even the meaning of that is disagreeable.
Let us assume a more charitable understanding and remember that even St Paul and St Barnabas had to walk apart for a while. Perhaps that needs to happen in order for the various divisions to realise what they have lost. Our Lord prayed for unity, so perhaps it can only happen through prayer, especially if there is no unity of mind.
As a Freeman of the City of Coventry, (Warwickensis), I tend to agree with you on the matter of the need for ‘Walking apart” for any who feel they no longer have a home with us inclusive Anglicans.
We from the Midlands may better understanding what it is to accept our differences, choosing to make love not war. As Christians, our truest unity is in Christ alone.
Tim, I apologise for pressing you on another thread to the point where it obviously become too personal. (I cannot now find the post)
It is no excuse but the language of the feminist meta narrative can be so extreme it makes for very difficult dialogue.
Anyway I wish you well and hope we can continue to dialogue
The problem is that you can’t realistically have an established church that doesn’t mean broadly the same thing wherever you go in the country. In large swathes of the country there will be only one benefice with services in reasonable travelling distance. Whether your fear is of homophobia, or that the priest or members of the congregation might be gay, dividing the CofE into a patchwork of affirming and anti-gay gathered congregations (who can really call them parishes with such a division?) means you no longer have a CofE. The CofE has just about survived the PEV absurdity because the… Read more »
Uniformity is essential. If people don’t know what reception they will receive, they will just stay away. They aren’t going to hunt around in the depths of websites to find out whether a particular church considers their marriage or gender valid: they will just stay away, and rightly so. And, as you say, rural benefices are so large that traveling elsewhere isn’t an option – nor would it be environmentally friendly to encourage them to do so.
Currently the Church of England doesn’t mean the same thing wherever you go in the country. That is the current reality. Parishes that hold to the current doctrine of the Church of England on marriage are not, by definition, anti-gay. Why not dis-establish the Church of England? What is so precious about ancient parish boundaries that do not reflect the present distribution of the population?
The reality has been different from the ideal (of uniformity) for years. I don’t see how we get anywhere without naming the reality. The challenge for the Bishops is to own their part in creating that reality
To the outsider it is liturgical diversity that most strikes them. I have come to feel that the path we took over liturgical reform since Series 2 has had a different effect from what was probably intended and has had “knock on” effects in other areas. This with changes in theological education has created the current “reality”. But it is difficult to see when the genie leaves the bottle how you get it back in!
I missed this comment to start with but I think you are right that liturgical diversity has had unfortunate consequences
‘might I suggest, rather than “unity in diversity”, separation.’
Thereby confirming the widely-held notion that the one thing Anglicans find so important that it’s worth splitting their church over is gay sex. Sigh. Here we go again.
That’s not fair, Tim. If we split it will be over the definition of marriage.
But the definition of marriage has changed before. In the Hebrew scriptures, despite Genesis 2.18-25, polygamy is quite acceptable and almost all the heroes of faith were polygamists, which is now illegal. Slave wives were also explicitly permitted in the Torah. As far as I can see in the Hebrew scriptures there was nothing resembling what we would today call a marriage service, or marriage vows – the man just went to get the woman, took her to his house, and threw a feast (rather like a common-law marriage, actually). Modern canon law (well, at least in Canada – I… Read more »
Let me give one hopefully non-contentious example. There is a good argument for introducing fix term marriages. Say one year with an option to extend another year on a rolling basis. That would almost eliminate the need for divorce and the social cost of divorce. It would reflect the reality of peoples lives. It might lead to more longer term relationships if it worked. I’m not trying to be clever. All these things could be true.
Would it be marriage? No. Could the Church of England introduce services for such a relationship. No.
It really really is not about homophobia.
Anyone who thinks that separate provinces within the C of E might provide a way forward clearly wasn’t paying attention during the process that led to women bishops. And anyway, Evangelicals looking for another ecclesial body to which to belong have the option of joining the set-up that recently gathered in a warehouse in Hull.
Why is it Evangelicals that are looking for another ecclesial body to which to belong? Perhaps it should be those who disagree with the Church of England’s current teaching on marriage.
Oh indeed. Those for who same sex marriage is a priority would be welcomed with open arms by, amongst others, the Methodist Church. But that is not the constituency asking for some sort of alternative ecclesial structure.
It’s yet another example of symmetry. One group say that those who disagree with them should go off and join the Methodists; another group say that those who disagree with them should go off and join GAFCON.
Since both parties could find a home elsewhere, why stay and fight? I can only suppose is that what they are fighting over is access to the wealth, power, privilege, status and prestige of the Church of England.
Why is it that evangelicals are suddenly so obsessed with being in agreement with their bishops? If you read Anglican evangelical history, until quite recently we always assumed our bishops would disapprove of us (probably for the same reasons as many of the regular commenters on TA!). Of course, a good number of the 18th century bishops were probably deists (which in my view would be a much more serious doctrinal difference than same-sex marriage).
There were no new provinces established in relation to the ordination of women. Your claim makes no sense
Fr Bracey was talking about separate provinces within the C of E. At the time of women’s ordination there were indeed voices calling for a Third Province in the C of E. It didn’t happen. Do you think it is likely over this issue Peter? I rather suspect the present constitutional arrangements militate against it. And in answer to Bob I don’t think disestablishment or the abandonment of the parish system is likely even in the medium term.
Already seeing the end of the parish system in my diocese with the introduction of mission partnerships, oversight ministry and focal ministers.
Focal minsters are meant to reinforce the parish system by providing a licenced minister for every parish / community. What sort of focal ministry is your diocese doing?
I know what he was talking about. They did not happen.
Given that they have not happened before there is no evidence they will not work. That is my point.
That’s precisely my point – there is no hope of a new province, so I don’t understand why the possibility is even being raised.
There is no basis for saying a new province cannot happen.
Probability?
I assume you mean it would be very difficult and therefore improbable. I entirely agree with you !
However, the only alternative is a disorderly disintegration . Surely trying different provinces it better than that
Improbable yes because it would be resisted in many quarters like the H of B, a significant proportion of GS, and within parliament given the church”s continued established status. But to say the only alternative is disorderly disintegration is I think overly pessimistic. Unlike more centralised denominations with a strong discipline we seem to have been able to live with considerable diversity and “disorder’ for quite a while
You are right, disintegration was the wrong word for me to use. Having said that disorder is still bad enough
It would be impossible to have two established churches. It would be almost certainly impossible to have an established church which is not only homophobic by history and tradition, but has affirmed that homophobia in the 21st century as being explicit doctrine. It would also be impossible for any respectable political party, charity or NGO to have dealings with it: this would be a unique institution, not one with homophobic tendencies with which it is struggling and debating, but one that sets out to be a home for homophobes. One can imagine an incoming Labour government facing serious pressure to… Read more »
Comparing conservatives to the National Front is an extreme form of Ad Hominem.
It advances the discussion not one step
I think a comparison with the National Front is inappropriate. Please desist from saying so.
Didn’t Finland used to have more or less such an arrangement with the Lutheran and Orthodox churches? Or do you mean impossible in England specifically?
It is very important to be clear Andrew Goddard is expressing an entirely personal set of views. He is, as always, analytical and considered. However, the general conservative view is much less elaborate.
The kind of convolutions Goddard describes will not survive any kind of contact with reality. To be fair, I think Goddard acknowledges that.
Conservatives will certainly work to achieve a settlement that involves separate jurisdictions.
The migraine-inducing tangle which Goddard describes is obviously a solution to nothing.
“The kind of convolutions Goddard describes will not survive any kind of contact with reality.” I totally agree, Peter. These are lines of defence, and unworkable solutions that cannot possibly be accepted. He’s probably bright enough to know that really. Andrew’s other line seems to be “we need further delay because this needs to go back to theological basics”… the implication being that the bishops haven’t done enough work, or the wrong type of work, so all change must be put on hold. But this topic has been done to death for 60 years, we still disagree, and the bishops… Read more »
Oddly I find I agree almost entirely with Goddard, although unlike him I believe that the correct reading of the Bible is in favour of same sex marriage.
Andrew Goddard’s article fits well within the conservative Evangelical perspective of Ian Paul’s ‘Psephizo’ blog. Paul obviously agrees with his acceptance of the ‘3 new bishops consecrated in Hull’, recently, by the schismatic Archbishop Foley Beach, of ACNA (who also happens to be the current Chair of GAFCON). He seems to delight in cocking a snook at local Anglican Churches. Beach was recently in Australia, presiding over the installation of a new bishop for a GAFCON church plant called ‘The Anglican Diocese of The Southern Cross’. THAT BISHOP was none other than the former Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies! Beach’s… Read more »
You are entirely wrong. Conservatives have not the slightest interest in disappearing down the ridiculous rabbit hole Goddard has decided to dig up.
We need to be delivered from people for whom there is always more analysis and appraisal needed.
Bishops need to tell us what they believe. It is not difficult.
“Bishops need to tell us what they believe. It is not difficult.” Peter it has been clear from what they have already written and spoken in many places that the bishops are not of one mind about the matter. Andrew Goddard makes that clear in his opinion pieces. It seems there has been some kind of moratorium for the last 5 years on bishops individually telling us what they believe whilst LLF has been in progress. What I am coming to think will happen is a return to some kind of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ arrangement which will allow a… Read more »
I agree with your analysis but not your conclusion. Surely all of us – conservatives and radicals alike – are at our wits end with the lack of clarity.
If they tell us what they believe we can at least make a start on building whatever is then needed.
The end of a marriage is a tragedy but people have to rebuild their lives.
Since different bishops believe (and do) different things, telling us what they believe may add some clarity as to why we have a major issue, but will not be a magic bullet to deal with anything. The controversy goes back a long while – the 1938 report of the Doctrine Commission (itself set up in 1922 – 16 years of work …), for example, was called “Doctrine in the Church of England” and not “The Doctrine of the Church of England” because it was a report of divergent views. The divergence has not narrowed since. One clear point is that… Read more »
You are exactly right. Sorting out the next step will be epically difficult. Not sorting it will surely be worse.
The work cannot start till bishops do what is actually their job. Just tell us what they believe
Peter they have been clear that they are not of one mind about the matter. So they have effectively told us what they believe. That will range from absolutely no change to the current doctrine to full acceptance of same sex marriage and everything in between. How does that help us?
The only practical way forward is an approach like we have had with the ordination of women.
The problem is the issue of trust. Small groups of front people agreed the arrangements for the ordination of women. Once the press conferences ended the reality proved to be very different. Almost nobody accepted that they were bound by the principle of mutual flourishing. Philip North’s treatment showed the utter lack of commitment to the arrangements. The arrangements were just window dressing so people could “get out the room” and carry on doing what they always intended to do. Conservatives (evangelical or Anglo catholic) are not going to fall into the same pit again and no reasonable person can… Read more »
I have added a link to the third (and last) of Andrew Goddard’s series of articles.
I think Andrew has done a good job with the series. I don’t agree with everything, but I think it’s a pretty decent effort.
Listening to our leaders (our bishops) as I have these past four years in private correspondence, I am not confident that they would opt for an absolute position either for or against gay sex. I don’t think that’s likely to happen.
However, quite a number seek a way out of this impasse and conflict, and are open to some kind of ‘accommodation’ of differing conscientious views.
I believe they are on retreat this week, reflecting on the way forward, and we should pray for them.
I don’t think individual conscience is a valid way forward. It becomes impossible to speak coherently in any topic. I do, however, think it is Scripturally possible to recognise two separate spiritual paths. Let’s call them wide and narrow to avoid loaded terms. So the wide path with same sex marriage, the ordination of women, remarriage after divorce etc is taught as the default path, but for those who want to dedicate their lives more closely then the narrow path with sacrifices in terms of restrictions is an alternative. Teaching that same sex marriage is wrong isn’t acceptable but teaching… Read more »
We are told very clearly that the wide path leads to destruction and the narrow path leads to salvation. I think you need a different metaphor.
However, in regard to your substantive point it makes no sense as a compromise. The conservative view is that SSM is not marriage.
If you think SSM is an option you are not a conservative. Fair enough, but a settlement needs to be based on what conservatives actually believe rather than what you think they should believe
Going beyond saying that same sex is wrong to defining marriage in a way which excludes the possibility of same sex marriage clearly crosses a red line for liberals. A man, Andrew, is entitled to approach his family priest and say, “My husband Brian is in hospital. Can we pray for him in the service on Sunday please?” There are no circumstances where it is acceptable for that priest, whatever his personal views, to deny the existence of the marriage. The intercession on Sunday clearly has describe Brian as Andrew’s husband otherwise the whole meaning for Andrew is lost. Nor… Read more »
To just pick on same sex sexual activity and condemn it would actually be homophobic. That is the fundamental problem with the argument. In America you can marry yourself. A one person marriage. The practice of polyamory is now socially acceptable and will obviously lead to calls for marriage to become three or more . There are people for whom there deepest feelings are for a pet. I’m not making fun of that. For the elderly losing a pet companion can be a devastating loss. Why should that not be the basis for marriage. Why not fixed term marriages ?… Read more »
‘In America you can marry yourself’.
Since in the United States (which I assume is what you mean by America), marriage law falls under the prerogative of the States and not the federal government, this statement is actually inaccurate.
‘The point is none of these arrangements are eligible to be considered as a marriage.’
Polygamous marriages were certainly considered as marriage in the Hebrew scriptures.
Tim. The people should not have wanted a human King, but God gave them one.
When our children do something foolish, we dig them out of the hole into which they have fallen.
That does not mean digging a hole and falling into it is part of God’s plan for us.
I gather there is a fad or fashion in various parts of the world, including the USA, to go through a form of marriage with yourself. Proponents call this “self-marriage” or “marrying yourself”. I don’t think it has any legal effect in any jurisdiction. What one can say is that “you can” in the sense that you will suffer no legal penalties for doing so — whereas there are greater risks of legal penalty in going through a form of marriage in other ways (e.g. when already legally married). But this rather illustrates the point, that there are several different… Read more »
“In America you can marry yourself. A one person marriage. The practice of polyamory is now socially acceptable and will obviously lead to calls for marriage to become three or more. There are people for whom there [sic] deepest feelings are for a pet. … Why should that not be the basis for marriage.” As you noted, Tim, in the US marriage is a matter of state law. Without doing any research on the matter, I can safely affirm that no US state permits either a marriage to oneself or a marriage to more than one person. In California, probably… Read more »
This is an argument for defining marriage as whatever someone wants it to be. Andrew may indeed want Brian to be thought of as his husband in the eyes of the priest, the church and its congregation as well as the eyes of the state, but on what grounds does he have the right to demand that? If Andrew cannot see any meaning in the prayers of the congregation for Brian’s health unless the congregation accede to Andrew’s view of their relationship irrespective of their own, then he might perhaps care to reflect on the nature of intercessionary prayer and… Read more »
Then Andrew and all his friends will stay away from the Church of England. The Church will shrink so only those without gay friends or family attend.
Since Andrew and Brian are fictional, it’s hard to say what their reaction is going to be. But I suspect that if Victoria the vicar were approached by Andrew for prayers on the basis that Victoria was required to enunciate exactly Andrew’s preferred form of words in the prayer regardless of Victoria’s conscientious views on the matter, then Victoria might not be completely unhappy to see Andrew and Brian move to another church.
Christians with socially conservative views on sexuality and marriage would never accept that model. On the other hand, substantial numbers of more moderate conservative evangelicals may well accept a ‘unity in diversity’ approach, which grants freedom of conscience, either to affirm gay sexuality or to repudiate it. There are solid arguments for either position, and a lot of people-in-the-middle who I believe are prepared to co-exist with other views, providing they can still keep their own. I disagree that would make it impossible to ‘speak coherently’. The church would just say, “We have two different views on this issue in… Read more »
If the Church of England formulates a new position and it doesn’t recognise same sex marriage then the Church of England will die because most younger people will refuse to have anything to do with it. Right now they are pretty apathetic but if there are headlines that the Church of England reaffirms that it will allow some priests to not recognise same sex marriage that will generate enough negative publicity that in my opinion the church won’t survive in its present form more than another decade or so.
If public perception of the Church of England’s position on same-sex marriage were the determining factor, we would expect to see that the Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church, both of which have agreed to accept same-sex marriage, would be seeing a resurgence in numbers. Is this the case? It would of course be possible to craft a doctrine that would increase numbers. All that stuff about sin, resurrection and so on would have to go, of course. The church as a centre for social and environmental activism, spaces for Green and Labour Party meetings, Jesus as a… Read more »
‘Let me put the radical suggestion that the reason the Church, and Christianity, is not of interest to many people is precisely that they do not see how its message differs from the Green Party manifesto.’
I find it interesting that liberals on this site often say the C of E is too conservative, and conservatives here often say it is too liberal. Hmm.
My comment was to the effect that the C of E is insufficiently Christian, at least as far as its public presentation goes. If the Church presents itself as nothing other than a party political movement with peculiar dresses and funny hats, whether that party be conservative (upper or lower case “C”) or liberal (upper or lower case “L”), then the people will see little point in joining it in preference to their preferred secular position. In other words, while it might be comforting to believe that if the public presentation of the C of E is being criticised from… Read more »
‘In other words, while it might be comforting to believe that if the public presentation of the C of E is being criticised from both ends of the political spectrum it must be doing something right, in this case the probability is that it is doing everything wrong.’ Well, I’m not a member of the C of E because i live in Canada, so I can’t speak to that. But given that the C of E is made up of thousands of parishes up and down the country, I find it very hard to believe that every one of those… Read more »
The Church of England, as an institution, has a public presentation. If that is not founded on presenting the Christian message, then as far as that presentation goes, yes, it is doing everything wrong.
This is seen particularly clearly in the comments from the progressive angle who insist that their own individual opinions are unquestionable because everything else is “homophobia”: a term that has no agreed definition and hence cannot be spoken of coherently. People on both sides of this discussion don’t seem to realise just how often their debating tactics and rhetoric form a perfect pair of mirror images.
I agree. People at the extreme ends of the argument seem to insist that their (and only their) view should be allowed. They seem to take absolutist positions. And they tend to mix in their own groups, which makes them think that almost everyone insists on the opposing group being forced to submit to one approach (their own). But actually, I suspect that most people in the Church are not that activist or immersed in the whole sex debate, and simply want to carry on their parish life and everything else that involves. Such people might well accept a ‘Broad… Read more »
If you actually want symmetry then only those affected by the discussion should be involved in it ie only LGBT Christians. That’s the thing: it’s theoretical to most conservatives and acutely personal for many liberals.
It’s not a case of wanting symmetry, it’s about observing the symmetry already present in the arguments. But the notion that only one side of the discussion should be involved in the discussion is far from symmetry. It is surprising the extent to which people who describer their position as liberal also call for extremely illiberal measures such as the exclusion, from their discussions and indeed their churches, of those who disagree with them.
Many conservatives have LGBTQ relatives and friends, some of whom may be Side A, some Side B. It’s acutely personal for them, too, and there’s considerable variety in how they handle that. I know, since I was one of them.
This is an important point. The majority of supporters of LGBT in the Church are straight. They have daughters, uncles, parents, neighbours, colleagues, friends who are lesbian or gay. And those people who do hold to conservative views, will have varied levels of acceptance, toleration or repudiation. There are also countless people in the Church who scarcely have a view at all, but strive to serve their communities. There are evangelical Christians who will never accept gay sexuality, there are other evangelical Christians who have come to realise the gift and goodness gay people bring to community, with their partners.… Read more »
I challenge the casual assumption that someone’s position on issues of sexuality is determined primarily by their own personal sexual orientation. It is possible to be attracted to certain forms of sexual act but simultaneously believe those acts to be wrong, or to be aware that those desires are getting in the way of a better relationship with God: and indeed this proposition is true of all other human desires and appetites.
In Ian Paul’s posting of the third of Andrew Goddard’s ‘statements’ about the situation of the Church if England, in the wake of the release of the material about LLF; his ideas about what will need to be addressed by the C. of E. Bishops are listed as follows: How the church views civil partnerships, marriage, and gender recognition in society and law;How the church’s teaching might take shape in relation to pastoral guidance and church discipline especially in relation to liturgy and the pattern of life of leaders;How any changes in teaching or practice are to be introduced; andThe… Read more »
A question. I’m just curious to know what other people think.
The saints who have departed. Do you think they can sometimes pray and intercede for us?
Or re-phrased:
Does the resurrection happen for everybody together at the end of the age, or are the departed saints already risen in eternity right now, and able – like Mary? – to pray on our behalf?
Thanksgiving for good lives lived on All Saints’ Day.
I think the use of words like ‘already’, ‘now’, and ‘not yet’ is problematic for the dead. Are they in time or outside of time? There is so much that we don’t know.
I think from our perspective they are ‘asleep in Jesus’, but from their perspective – who knows? But I don’t believe they are ‘risen in eternity’ yet, because I think that resurrection necessarily involves the body.
Not exactly a categorical answer to your question, Susannah, but that’s the best I’ve got!!!
Thank you! It was an open question. I wasn’t seeking a ‘correct’ answer. I was just interested in people’s own views and experiences. I agree with your point about words like ‘already’, Tim. That’s the language of a person (me) writing inside time. I’d also be interested in input from people more towards the catholic end of the Anglican communities. It’s All Saints’ Day in fifteen minutes here: are the Saints who once lived actually alive and risen in the eternity we go to? do any people here ask Mary to intercede for them in prayer? or sometimes have a… Read more »
Dear Susannah, in regard to your question about the disposition of the ‘Faithful Departed’, we have one clue from the First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, chapter 4, verses 14-18: – beginning with these words: “For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep…….” The following verse describes, I think, most of us after the death of the body: (because some of us will nowadays have gone through the process of cremation) – our spiritual body will ‘rest in peace’ and then, according to… Read more »
Thank you Father Ron! You wrote: “The ‘Saints’, I believe because of their earthly purgation, may already be with the Father in Heaven, praying for us still in earthly exile – an orthodox, catholic, belief.” That is a view I am myself inclined to believe, though I’m not even sure we can know in this life, seeing through glass darkly. When I was in deepest need and despair, a novice in the US recommended Therese de Lisieux and ‘Story of a Soul’. Something nagged and nagged inside me, so I ordered the book. I had never even heard of her… Read more »
I chuckled a little at the comment left by my old online friend Father Ron on Helen King’s article: ‘The times; they are a’changing! The Church needs to keep up with reality!’
You need to get a new song if you want to keep up with reality, Ron! That one was released 58 years ago!
Indeed, Tim, round about the time the C of E started discussing same-sex relationships…!
An issue which gets surprisingly little attention is the fiasco over Philip North. The ordination of women is a total non starter as a basis for a settlement. You cannot possibly expect conservatives to fall into that pit again after the complete collapse of trust after North. Please do not now tell me why it was entirely right for him to be blocked. That is to miss the point entirely. The only possible settlement will be on the basis of independent constitutional terms. Nobody is going to buy the idea everybody will just be reasonable and cooperative. Try telling that… Read more »
Peter, I agree that the treatment of Philip North was disgraceful. It was also terrible for trust. Those opposed to women’s ordination (not my own view) were assured they had a valuable place at all levels of the Church of England. Then he was hounded out. I have heard your point voiced frequently, and I get it. I still believe in Unity in Diversity, because I think ALL of us are Church. And because I respect people’s consciences. But the obvious argument against it is “Look what they did to Philip North. They assured us we would be protected in… Read more »
I think in an obviously very very small way you and I represent the fact there is common ground which can be found between conservatives and those who want change.
I think it will come down to the question of does the settlement need to be based on good faith as was the case with the ordination of women. Or are independent constitutional terms needed. (i.e. a new province, though that term seems to alarm people so perhaps I should stick to “constitutional terms” as a label)
There is another view of the Philip North events – that of many of the women clergy in Sheffield diocese. If we want to reopen that, there will need to be another thread. However, the five guiding principles approach won’t work with same sex marriage – the structure of the debate is different.
The point is whatever the different sides of that case maybe – and of course the opponents of North in Sheffield should be heard – the notion of mutual flourishing on the basis of good faith collapsed after the episode.
The key issue, on which I think we might agree, is the ordination of women settlement offers nothing to help solve our current problem.
Lots of issues here of course! Philip North was of course put in the position he was by an incompetent CNC, exercising very poor judgment. I will settle down to study Andrew Goddard’s piece, but for now some things are certain, one of which is that the status quo is not an option. But don’t expect the College of Bishops fully to embrace the benchmark they would prefer to forget, radical inclusion. This is the Church of England. Authorised liturgy for blessing same sex unions might be possible, but all change will be fought over, as with women. And it… Read more »
What are your views on differentiation ?
It’s a genuine question
Would you mind not using the term
Self made idol ?
Dear Friends in our Anglican Mother Church of England. Perhaps we worry too much about whether, or not, people who deny the authenticity of gay relationships and trans-identification and the other identifications of sexuality that no longer conform to the old, traditional, idea of a strictly binary nature can – or even should – be included in your branch of the Anglican Communion. GAFCON is already offering them an alternative. GAFCON – in the wake of the C. of E.’s decision not to clarify, and insist on, the pastoral importance of welcoming ALL into the fellowship and membership of the… Read more »
If we ever land on a settlement it will certainly involve people who disagree continuing to publically disagree.
What might be achieved is that we stop fighting over the organisation.
Careful here, Father. If Anglicans can call themselves Catholic on the grounds that they have the same Catholic heritage as the See of Rome, then those institutions who separate from the Anglican Communion still bear Anglican heritage. “Anglican” has too many contested definitions to be exclusive to the Communion as ACNA and the Continuing Anglican bodies demonstrate. I don’t think it will ever be possible for ecclesial bodies that separate from Communion with the See of Canterbury to be denied being described – even soi disant – as “Anglican”.
‘Reformed Anglican’ would be ok for me, but not the solely ‘Orthodox Anglican’, which title they are already appropriating for themselves! the implication is that the rest of us are heterodox.
In any case, the very word Anglican implies a living relationship with the Church of England, which those who no longer accept koinonia fellowship with the Church of England are unable now to claim.
“Anglican implies a living relationship with the Church of England, which those who no longer accept koinonia fellowship with the Church of England are unable now to claim.”
But that is a disputed definition, Father. Others, especially some of the Continuing Anglicans, would say that to hold to the Anglican Formularies, (Prayer Book, Articles, Ordinal and Homilies) defines what it is to be an Anglican. Don’t they have a point?
As I no longer consider myself to be an Anglican, I don’t intend to labour this, you’ll be pleased to hear!
Some of us, Brother – especially in ‘overseas’ Provinces of the Anglican Communion – no longer look exclusively to the Book of Common Prayer for local use. We have our own Prayer Books, with our own Eucharistic formularies. Neither do we look to the 39 Artifacts for our governance. We cling, rather, to the Anglican genius for ‘Unity in Diversity’ – not compliance with what have now become outdated’ Rules and Regulations. (How many Anglicans still believe in the dogmatic requirements of ‘The Churching of Women’, for instance?). Our Unity is ‘en Christo‘ – together with our filial koinonia relationship… Read more »
Sorry, I did say I wasn’t going to press this, Father, but you’ve sort of made my point. Some people adhere to a modern definition of “Anglican”, i.e. your good self by saying that you have to be in Communion with Canterbury. That’s rather like saying that, in order to be Catholic, you have to be in Communion with Rome. To call into existence an Anglican “genius” is also rather nebulous and one might say that this genius has its origin of expression within the Formularies which you might not hold to but many have, and many still do. Perhaps… Read more »
I am a conservative orthodox Anglican. I have a living relationship with the Church of England. Nobody gets to take those away from me.
Quite right. And I have respect for you. Similarly, I am a socially liberal, spiritually conservative, charismatic-inclined, Anglican who accepts the Creed but is open to the possibility that orthodoxy may evolve over time, and within cultures, by the power of the Holy Spirit and the exercise of human conscience. And there should be a place for people like me in the Church of England as well, and people like me. Baptised – years as chorister – conformed – ‘born again’ – ‘baptised in the Spirit’ – fellowship member of Anglican convent – three children all similarly baptised and committed… Read more »
Excepting, Brother, if you take yourself out of its provincial government and ethos – like those who have already done so.
If you are a ‘conservative’ within the Church of England, then you are as Anglican as I am. All I ask of you is that you equally respect my inclusivism. Agape
If we can just work out independent constitutional arrangements that create some form of associated but separate structures then that is the preferred choice of conservatives.
Struggle and conflict in perpetuity is the very last thing any of us what.
That seems a suitable point on which to agree.
I wish you every blessing