Church in Wales Statement of the Bench of Bishops of the Church in Wales on the Supreme Court ruling regarding the legal definition of a woman
Mark Clavier Well-Tempered Why I Love the Church Year (Even Lent)
Andrew Brown The slow deep hover The Bishop who didn’t believe a word of it
I was baptised into the Church of England and live in Berlin but have found my spiritual home at St Woolas Cathedral in Newport. If you want to know why you would do well to read the Statement of the Bench of Bishops of the Church in Wales on the Supreme Court ruling regarding the legal definition of a woman. This document has much wider significance than the Supreme Court ruling because it addresses what it means to be a child of God. You don’t have to be Transgender to feel that you don’t fit in or that you are… Read more »
The Bishops say ‘every human’, but if the ruling had gone the way would they have written the same statement expressing sympathy for women who want privacy/safety or who have trauma? If we accept that they would not, then they have picked a side. And if they have picked a side then from what principles has this come from? They don’t give any – all they have is unequal weights. (On an unrelated note – we are not all children of God, but only those who have faith in Jesus and have ‘put on’ Christ being given His Spirit that… Read more »
What grounds have you for saying, “If we accept that they would not …”?
Jesus defines the phrase somewhat differently:
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
‘ What grounds have you for saying, “If we accept that they would not …”?’ It’s an ‘if’, and it comes from having even a bare awareness of Church in Wales and the fact that there have been many victories for the trans-movement and my not being familiar with any calls to remember that abused women who would want to go to a shelter without any men are children of God. But we can never prove what would happen in a counterfactual world. ‘ Jesus defines the phrase somewhat differently:’ Is everyone a peacemaker then? Because unless everyone is a… Read more »
It would seem, though, that the ruling *forces* some women to use men’s-only facilities, because they are the same “biological sex” (a nebulous concept) as men.
Thanks so much for the human interest time capsule from Andrew Brown on the late John Shelby Spong. From the article: ” ‘ I’m not a professional theologian’, said the bishop. ‘ I make no bones of that. I’m a communicator.’ ” Spong was actually a great popularizer. As a best seller he managed to get ideas that were current in the scholarship of the day in front of a popular audience. Anyone who read Spong and who had also read scholars like John Hick, Edward Schillebeeckx, Wolfhart Panneberg, or Hans Kung ( the latter a hybrid of erudition and… Read more »
It was Rowan Williams who spoke of amateur hour. Just in the FWIW category, Pannenberg would be bemused at the idea of being included with these other names. I was a doctoral student at Munich during the Kung dustup. Pannenberg had nothing to do with colleagues on the Catholic Faculty. Maybe find another name to put alongside these. Spong would have been Mr Bean to him, if he had any idea who he was. Have a great day.
Pannenburg on the topic de jour. “Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal… Read more »
Yeah I think Panneberg’s unfortunate opinion on that issue is well known among those of us who have read him, along with his views on the two natures doctrine and the virgin birth where he is less preachy about what is ‘normative’ biblical or otherwise. So pick your favorite horse of his. Of course he is not Hick, he was Pannenberg.
You included him with a list of people, the implication being they were on the same wave length.
That is simply not true when it comes to Pannenberg.
He was proud of his orthodox Lutheran bona fides.
Tangential to my point.
Must admit, I only read one Spong book, “The Sins of the Scriptures” and, quite simply, couldn’t agree with him. To me he seemed more concerned to undermine faith than anything else – someone else remarked that when one of his books was hailed by a leading US atheist society as their book of the year, surely it should have told the church something?
But then it takes all sort to make a world, or a church.
First good to see you back. I took it from your comment on the May 3rd thread that you had left TA. I didn’t even have time to get through all eight stages of grief. It is like a mini Easter, a little while and you won’t see me and a little while and you will. Just joshing you. lol. Thanks, but that is really all beside the point i.e. Spong popularizing ideas from academia. Spong questioning the virgin birth, and any number of erudite academics/theologians questioning the same, including Pannenberg, although for him Resurrection was the big ticket event.… Read more »
Very helpful summary Ruairidh. Thank you for it. Anglican Priest disappears from time to time but then emerges with another name, so don’t be too surprised. I was taught by John Hick, David Ford, Dan Hardy and others as an undergraduate just after The Myth of God incarnate had been published. The theologians you refer to were all part of the study and nothing John Spong said would have been out of place. That there has been a backlash against that kind of enquiry in (some) church circles is troubling. And continues to trouble me. John Hick was the most… Read more »
It’s come back to me. Rowan said it was what was expected from a sixth former. A kind comment after all. Be well.
“That’s just not Rowan’s style” says Mr Godsall.
“The implication of the [Spong] theses is that the sort of questions that might be asked by a bright 20th century sixth-former would have been unintelligible or devastating for Augustine, Rahner or Teresa of Avila. The fact is that significant numbers of those who turn to Christian faith as educated adults find the doctrinal and spiritual tradition which Bishop Spong treats so dismissively a remarkably large room to live in.”
Rowan Williams.
Now that is classic Rowan, and he would have expressed it with a great deal of grace – which the bare words themselves don’t quite communicate.
And we need to remember that a bright sixth former in England would likely go on to study at Oxford or Cambridge. So it isn’t an insult.
AND we need to remember that a large room provides space for quite a lot of latitude. It’s a large space, not a narrow one. Rowan speaks very clear sense.
Thanks. Always interestimg to hear from folks who have had first hand experience with some of these very bright creative thinkers. To your first point there is a Robert Palmer song that reminds me of some of us who are habitual at TA. ” might as well face it your’ re addicted to ….blog” ha ha. My apologies to the lyricist of Addicted to Love”. Lol.
Yes indeed, I think you are right! And that lyric has the line ‘you like to think you are immune to this stuff’…how true!
Who are the Schillebeeckx and Hick et al nowadays. I’m too out of touch. But the 70s were an immensely creative time.
Good to hear from you, Andrew. Yes, ‘an immensely creative time’ is how I remember the 70s, that and girls.
One of the changes between than and now seems to be the role atheism played in the forum – now we have indifference, a far harder partner to dance with.
One person who is very active and prolific is Bart Ehrman. He has a very large popular following; but unlike Spong has bona fides as a scholar –a former evangelical who is an atheist. I’ve attached a link and he has an entry on Wikipedia. Now, I’m not in his camp; but I have cheered him on when he has tangled with his conservative peers. You need popcorn! Allan Sheath notes astutely in his comment below how atheism has given way to indifference. One of the other things that has changed, and this goes to the delivery system of popularizing… Read more »
Thanks for the link. Looks like an interesting thinker and speaker, and I will explore some more. I think Allan Sheath has a very good point and thank you for also expanding it to point out that the digital revolution has made an enormous difference in our world of theological thinking as well as everywhere else. The manosphere thing is truly frightening. Whenever I see churches wanting to have mens breakfasts, or mens walks or mens pub meetings I shudder. Maybe it was 4 years at an all boys school that made me never want to be in an all… Read more »
Andrew…. You ask “where are the bishops who don’t mind stirring things up?”. Have you forgotten the brave action recently of the Bishop of Newcastle. ? A shining example to all.
I have the same reaction to ‘manosphere’. Almost as ghastly as a ‘team building’ weekend away. I had one when working for a Norwegian company. After dinner, we were all forced to have a ’round the fire’ discussion, with a topic chosen by the leader. In the middle of a conversation with a French colleague, I was advised to stop chatting and participate in the the group discussion. Most of us sat there silently. Several resigned shortly after this team building exercise.
‘If this is what the team is, then I want no part in it’.
The irony is that the solution to the manosphere is to present a positive Christian view of masculinity to young men and things like men’s breakfast and men’s walks help with that. You seem to think that Christians are advocating for an Andrew Tate style view of the world when that couldn’t be further from the truth. The liberal approach (I mean not just in the church but more broadly) of presenting a purely negative view of masculinity and of men is a lot of the problem and is a lot of the reason why men end up finding people… Read more »
I profoundly disagree. The solution to the manosphere is to discover the true equality of men and women. The work of female liberation still goes on, and in some places around the world is in its infancy. That isn’t being liberal. It’s being fully human.
Help me work this out – how do men’s breakfasts, men’s walks and other opportunities for men to have fellowship with one another in the church has anything to do with the manosphere?
I think these things are valuable opportunities for younger men to learn from older men as to what it looks like to be a Christian man (which is quite different to what influencers in the manosphere might suggest).
Do you have the same attitude towards women’s groups in the church?
Gareth the manosphere is a collective term for anything that promote masculinity and enhances opposition to feminism. I think any organised collection of men will end up that way. Of course some men will want to socialise. As will some women. Socialising isn’t what men’s breakfasts etc are about. They are an evangelistic tool for promoting masculinity. What’s wrong with evangelistic tools that simply promote humanity? And humanity is both male and female. If some men have a problem with being in groups that might even be slightly more than 50% women then I think the last thing they need… Read more »
I disagree strongly with this definition of the manosphere. The manosphere refers to online spaces that promote toxic masculinity. I also wonder what men’s events you’ve actually been to because I’ve seen these events are primarily for socialising and getting to know other men in church better which can only be a good thing in my book. I also question the assumption that “promoting masculinity” is a bad thing. I think we want to present a positive view of what Christian masculinity is as exemplified in Christ and encourage younger men to look to that rather than to toxic sources… Read more »
Gareth I think the manosphere is fuelled by the kind of neo fundamentalism that is on the rise around the world. It’s on the rise in Church too, hence the backlash against John Spong. Rowan Williams, in the quote provided by Mr Seitz, reminds us that Christian doctrine is a very large room, and fundamentalism, be it liberal or conservative, has no place in the Church. I once worked in a diocese where the bishop was mad about men’s breakfasts etc. so I did my fair share. As I have said, if men want to socialise then that’s great. They… Read more »
Is this one of these cases where two people talk past each other by using the same word to mean two different things? For example I have learnt that the term “homosexuality” can be used by different people to mean various different things – somebody with an inherent, inborn homosexual disposition, somebody who conforms to a homosexual social construct, or simply a man who has sex with another man. Unless you define your terms carefully and understand the other person’s definition then the debate can get incredibly confusing. Is it the same thing is going on here with the word… Read more »
Is there a difference between ‘strong and pro-active’ and ‘strong and assertive’ ?
I see great benefit in having groups for sharing and prayer where the group members have some common interests. That common interest may be to do with gender, sex, age, profession, art discipline, parenthood, anything you want. They may find it easier to open up and share if members from outside that group are not attending.
There is no problem in being strong and assertive in certain roles, such as the armed forces, as long as that person is comfortable working with and for equally strong and assertive women. I agree with you that there can be benefit in having specialist meetings or groups with a limited membership. I am part of certain LGBT groups for example, and I can see the benefit of mens or womens groups within a church setting. The issue is how to ensure that group see themselves as continuing to be one part of the wider community, and not in opposition… Read more »
Does the Church of England Men’s Society still exist?
Aha – I see is stopped in 1985 at least at a national level. Although there is a group local to me in Streatham. At least according to AI.
Agreed that definition of terms to avoid talking past is crucial. Here are links to two very different articles in that regard. The Q & A from America Magazine is interesting. Hope it is accessible. https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/evolution-catholic-masculinity-15-questions-dr-aqualus-gordon On the other hand the article from BBC which folks may have seen would be hilarious if it wasn’t so disturbing. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c30q5l8d4lro “Skinny jeans, crossing your legs, using an iron, shaping your eyebrows, and even eating soup are among the things he [ Fr. Moses] derides as too feminine.” By that standard even a feisty guy like me from the streets of a coal… Read more »
Hi Rod, thanks for the links. All of them fascinating. Firstly, I have been cheering you on from the sidelines in your comments about Spong and belief. I don’t know much about the man or the deeper theological arguments, but as an amateur working preacher and teacher in the churches around Wiltshire I know that in some people there is a real need for the sort of discussions you mention, which is hard to find nowadays compared to 25 years ago. I think it’s a bit like the discussion of gender. Some people feel the need to impose a strict… Read more »
Thanks for the reply and the link. Maybe the ‘rules for men thing’ is a riff on Jordan Peterson. In the may 10th edition of The Economist, the section titled, Growing Catholicism: Altered Minds, there is a reference to American R.C. media personality Bishop Robert Barron who “celebrates a new ‘macho Christianity’, where men can be ‘heroes’ “. I doubt it is because he is a David Bowie fan. lol. I had a prof who was an Irish Dominican, very learned, toted a doctoral degree from the Angelicum; but he used to tell students that everything you need to know… Read more »
But David Bowie wrote
“I, I will be king
and you, you will be queen
Though nothing will drive them away
We can beat them just for one day
We can be heroes, just for one day”
It’s the gender inclusivity you would expect from Ziggy Stardust. Women can be heroes too. From what I can guess of your grandmother’s life history I suspect she had quite a heroic life.
But I like the we CAN be heroes. There is a world of difference between that and men MUST be heroes – and therefore not like a woman.
Bowie is terrific. Yes my Grand mother had a heroic life. She was widowed at a very early age, living the rest of her life without a man involved, she did child raising and ran a small business including through the depression and WW2. She was a devout Catholic but not naive about the church as an institution. Re heroes, it is deeply disturbing to see how the cohort of transgender members of the U.S. armed services are being treated by their government. Religion, of course, is a player in that injustice. The transphobia involved was described by one judge… Read more »
Richard Holloway was another.
I’ve been involved in small group Bible studies with both men and women, and also a men’s Bible study that I inherited when I became the rector of my last parish, and is in fact the longest standing small group in that church. It was a completely positive experience. Of course, the fact that all the members are now either retired or about to retire makes it a little different from the ‘earnest young men’ Rod was referring to.
another is Dan McClellan.. his videos push DATA over DOGMA. He and Ehrman both have strong academic credentials. In particular Dan argues that much that is claimed about the bible is simply rhetoric intended to aggrandize status and privilege of the speaker and his (generally his, of course) community. Dan does not find any evidence of the concept of the Trinity in the canonical scriptures, arguing that it took centuries before the notion began to take root. He adamantly opposes the dogmas of univocality and inspiration (eg Timothy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_McClellan_(biblical_scholar) And if i read my Raymond Brown right, he too thought… Read more »
‘Dan does not find any evidence of the concept of the Trinity in the canonical scriptures’
No shit, Sherlock.
ha ha, that comment would win a prize for humorous concision. lol!. I’m more of an economic trinity in the scripture and liturgy kind of guy myself. The classical formulas of the ‘immanent trinity’ are largely speculative hypotheses. For example you can go out in the tall grass with notions of paternity, filiation, procession, spiration. ( Lonergan and his four point hypothesis for instance). In the book, The Idea of History, R. G. Collingwood talks about what constitutes historical progress. He illustrates his point by discussing how in his view Aristotle made genuine progress from Plato precisely because he builds… Read more »
Re your last sentence, may I suggest that view of the late Raymond Brown is a tad cavalier? Brown, who preferred to name the issue as ‘virginal conception’ rather than ‘virgin birth’ wrote extensively and with exhaustive rigour on the issue, Virginal conception and Bodily Resurrection, and Birth of The Messiah in 1977 with an updated second edition in 1999. In the 2nd edition, Supplement: Appendix IV, Historicity of the Virginal Conception, he tackled criticism of his view over the twenty years between both editions that came from all sides: “A particular point in the reaction [ to Birth of… Read more »
Just a quick follow up. Thanks for the link re Dan McClellan. Just getting to it. Did not know of him. Intrigued by the Cognitive Perspectives angle. As in this article of his:
https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/mcclellan-2017-cognitive-perspectives-on-early-christology.pdf
I only had one encounter with Spong, at a public lecture in Colchester c.2010. I’m afraid that the graciousness described above did not seem to be in evidence; his response to questions was prickly and dismissive; he came over as arrogant. Even his supporters were not impressed and did not ask for a return visit when one was offered. Perhaps he was less at ease in the British context than the American one.
I never saw the man in person. I can’t speak to his personality. One of our local parishes brought him in at one point. I read a couple of his books simply because he was in fact very popular and folks were asking me what I thought about him. I said above that I don’t know who he may have been reading exactly; but in fact I do know he was reading the late Raymond Brown because Brown writes about it in the supplemental section of his, Birth of the Messiah which I referenced above. And on that subject, I… Read more »
I disagree. I heard him speak at Gladstone’s library, Hawarden, a place to which he was no stranger. There he was both gracious and engaging.
Fair enough – I may have caught him on an off-day (we all have them!). Nevertheless, on that night, he did not relate well to a generally supportive audience.
I now think he was really a world class bullshitter, in the sense that he had no interest in the truth of his words, but a tremendously well developed sense of their reception, and of his audiences’ desires. This went along with his charm and his undoubted kindness to strangers. I don’t mean he was a bad man, only that he had no sense that a theological statement might be true or false; only what its social valence would be.
When we abandon Scripture as a divinely donated norm, and cease striving that our consciences be captive to the Word of God, then bullshit, of one form or another is all that remains. Theology just becomes a competition in the ability to bullshit most convincingly. Indeed it essentially becomes what atheistic secular philosophy has become. An arena in which a man can ‘become’ a woman by declaring that that is what s/he is. In which terms like ‘man’ and ‘woman’ no longer carry any actual ontological heft, but can, like the words of humpty dumpty, mean whatever we want them… Read more »
But that isn’t what the Supreme Court ruling says which restricted its scope to sport and a single Act of Parliament while effectively reinforcing that people can, and do, change sex.
Nor is it the settled doctrine of the Church of England which is that someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate is their acquired sex for the purpose of marriage in the Church of England.
The Supreme Court ruling is a small step away from bullshit towards sanity. I didn’t say that it fully betokened the Biblical Thinking I seek to uphold.
As for Acts of Parliament and ‘the settled doctrine of the CofE’ – well neither Westminster nor General Synod are immune from bullshitting.
He could read a room brilliantly, discerning allies to enlist and enemies to villify, often turning his wit and eloquence in a powerful tour de force against much punier opponents who had the temerity to disagree with him. A showman or a bully?
Nice summary.
Thanks for your article. Appreciated it. I only knew him from his books and the occasional media interview. The fact that your piece was based on a fairly intensive encounter with Spong from back in the day is what makes it so interesting. I commented that he was not a theologian but a popularizer of theologians. That kind of thing can lead to sensationalism and certainly oversimplification. What you describe as Spong giving priority to the social valence of religious ideas is one way into appreciating him. Spong had a social and political context, as you note in your piece.… Read more »