Charlie Bell ViaMedia.News No More Delay: A Call to General Synod
Charlie Bell For whom the Bell tolls A response to ‘The Church of England’s Doctrine of Marriage’, +Fulham et al
Philip Jones Ecclesiastical Law Canon B5 and the Prayers of Love and Faith
Lorraine Cavanagh Modern Church What Price Unity?
Colin Coward‘s vlog – episode 2
Catherine Pepinster Religion News Service Church of England submits blessings for same-sex couples to fierce debate in Synod
Francis Martin Church Times MPs plan to put pressure on the C of E after Welby’s disestablishment remarks
Sarah Meyrick Church Times Fourteen bishops publish a defence of traditional marriage
Jayne Ozanne The Guardian One side of the C of E preaches LGBT+ acceptance, the other says I’m going to hell. This can’t go on
Andrew Davison Church Times We will bless couples, not just people
Church of England press: House of Bishops – Monday 20 January 2023
20 is clearly a misprint for 30.
Everybody is dreading the miserable debacle that will be this week‘s Synod and I speak as a conservative.
The only useful outcome is going to be we will finally all know for certain that the denomination is in complete deadlock.
We then might just begin to reach across the divide and begin work on walking apart. Differentiation is the only route out of this cauldron.
It means people working with those they fundamentally oppose, but it will bring a settlement
I’m just working on my sermon for tomorrow. In the gospel we are encouraged to let our light so shine before others that they may see our good works and give praise to our Father in heaven.I’m not sure the spectacle of next week’s synod will shine that sort of light somehow…
Extract from my sermon tomorrow: ” …. what happens when some of that darkness is seen to be in the church itself? What does that mean for our mission? How do we encourage people in a missionary sense if the prospectus is damaged? What does the Church of England look like for any who identify as LGBTQI+ today? Not a place of light I would suggest. So much of this call by Jesus to be salt and light needs also to reflected back on us. How are we seen by others to whom we are trying to minister?”
What I still don’t understand about the proposals for differentiation is how we would in any sense be one church, other than that the conservatives would still want to vote for deanery synod members in order to have votes in the election of General Synod. Would they turn up to any meetings in those deaneries? I’ve asked this basic question but not had a reply, Separate theological training, separate bishops, different practices on marriage of same-sex couples (and probably also of straight couples where one has previously been divorced): one church??
The appeal from conservatives is to reach a settlement. It will not be pretty and nobody will take pride in its intellectual consistency
Helen, what is the alternative. Another year, or five years or ten years of this ?
We have this debate once a decade and have done for a while. I don’t understand why allowing those who feel it is right to pray with and for a couple makes any difference to those who don’t feel it is right and won’t use the prayers. With divorced people marrying again, it is at the discretion of the person officiating, and this would be too. Is a settlement with no intellectual consistency any different from this, or from the 5GPs?
A settlement is an end to the conflict. That is clearly different to continuing the conflict.
Really? The settlement on women in the 5GPs hasn’t ended anything
Hi Helen, First of all, thank you so much for your talk to Modern Church. I loved your calm and intelligence (and evident prayerfulness). I’d love a chat one day. To be fair, the 5GPs have protected those Christians with conservative views on female ordination, enabling them to remain in the Church of England, and be part of who we are as a Church, while going ahead with women’s ordination/consecration for all those who accept that. Why couldn’t a similar arrangement protect those Christians with conservative views on sexuality, enabling them to remain in the Church of England, and be… Read more »
“We’re not saying churches and priests can’t oppose gay marriage, but we’re saying those who affirm it should be allowed to do so”
I fear you’ll find that the result of that will be that those who oppose gay marriage will protest loudly and long, claiming they
remain the “orthodox” who should retain control of their parishes, even if outnumbered by the other side. A schism is inevitable, one way or the other–that is what is happening in the formerly United Methodist Church here in the US.
I agree. 5GPs is a cul de sac in every sense
“Differentiation is the only route out of this cauldron.” Afraid I agree, Peter. I’ve spent years asking supporters of the traditional position to suggest some way, any way, that the church can marry couples equally while safeguarding the consciences of those who disagree, and nothing besides structural changes appears acceptable (and many strongly oppose even that). This is why I’d like to see those who back the historic position take a lead on escaping this impasse: thank you for doing so.
Jayne Ozanne writes in The Guardian The latter teaches that if someone like me, a lesbian, has sex then I will go to hell – a truth as central to this branch of faith as believing in the virgin birth or the resurrection. That simply isn’t true. The central position of the conservative wing is that sex outside marriage is a sin, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no claim that committing a single sinful act makes all the difference between heaven and hell, which is not part of any Christian teaching, and I… Read more »
“committing a single sinful act”?
But of course that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether equal marriage is to be celebrated and blessed in church. A marriage is not a single act; it is a lifelong commitment.
As for grace and whether we restrict our own access to it: That is simply a suggestion that young people continue to abandon the Church of England, which will not extend the grace of equal marriage.
If one accepts that the Church of England may continue to discriminate in this way, then one should also accept its disestablishment.
“The issue” of my comment is the claim Jayne Ozanne made attributing an incorrect position to conservatives. As to the ways in which each of us restricts our own access to grace: those are personal spiritual issues, for each of us individually. It has nothing to do being “a suggestion that young people continue to abandon the Church of England”, let alone “simply” one.
If you are genuinely committed to the orthodox faith you need to drop your weapons and start reaching across the divide.
We all know the arguments. We have set them out a hundred times.
We need to start a practical conversation about walking apart. There is no point in “setting people straight” on their theology. If somebody writes or says something that annoys you, just let it go
We all need a settlement
What weapons? A seat on the General Synod? A column in The Guardian? A stipend from a charitable foundation? Freedom to misrepresent my opponents without challenge? I think you’re thinking of someone else.
You are provocative, argumentative and intent on winning. Those are the weapons you should drop
You mention those personal characteristics as if they were bad things … but good or bad they aren’t weapons.
You use scripture to correct people in relation to the most personal and difficult aspects of their lives.
Yet you will not an accept correction in regard to something as simple and undemanding as the need for you to say less.
On your semantic play, anything is a weapon if it is used by one person to dominate another
One of the weapons you might want to consider dropping is claiming for conservatives the “orthodox faith” as if conservative Bibliolatry isn’t itself heterodox.
You need to accept that people can and will define their positions in terms of their own choosing.
I respect your right to define your perspective in terms acceptable to you. You should extend the same courtesy to me.
In any event, my substantive point to unreliable narrator – who purports to be orthodox – is that nit picking and point scoring needs to stop.
“The central position of the conservative wing is that sex outside marriage is a sin” And that’s the problem of course. ConEvos so obsessed with sex that it becomes a central tenet of their statement of faith – indeed it has been specifically added, having never been a part. Coupled with the arrogance and certainty to know what God does or does not bless, and that celibacy for life is the mandatory sentence for some. Quite apart from the unshakeable view about whom Paul was addressing (and why) in Romans 1. But, pace Helen King above, the small chink of good news… Read more »
Anthony,
CEEC need a set of non-conservative negotiators with whom they can work to find a deal. Is there such a group ?
If not, pragmatists such as yourself and Helen King are needed to establish it.
By the way, Goddard is an eccentric who speaks only for himself. LLF is about to enter its seventh year. Goddard’s claim that more time is needed is obviously an absurdity. Please do not assume conservatives are eager for more years of chaos. We are not.
Peter. This is exactly what the LLF course and resources were designed to provide. Nothing less. It is apparent to me that some conservatives would not find any ‘deal’ acceptable except no change. And for what it worth I need persuading that Andrew Goddard is not one of these.
David, CEEC could not have made the position clearer. They want a settlement.
And what is wrong with freedom of conscience? Or is the only problem that the Bishops didn’t offer that?
That works fine at the moment for post-divorce remarriage.
As I’ve said before, “no change” is no solution, since there’d remain a substantial constituency in the church campaigning for equality.
Anglicanism simply isn’t structured to do as, say, the Catholic Church did on equal ordination, and issue a definitive teaching. Along with disciplining theologians, that has effectively shut down debate (at great cost). But it’s not the Anglican way.
That being so, some alternative needs to be found, and it’d have most chance of success if open evangelicals would take the lead.
Well, the St Hugh’s Conversation, set up over 3 (?) years ago by the Bishop of Oxford to bring conservative and non-conservative people together (originally from his diocese but now extending further) is pretty well what you are asking for here. We were only given permission to say it exists at the last-but-one meeting. The conservatives on it are clear that they need structural differentiation but when I asked at the last meeting what would constitute ‘unity’ (being in the same church) if this went ahead, that was not answered.
A settlement will be a practical discussion about property, assets, shared services and oversight.
Helen, we are not a united church. It is agony, but we have to move on and walk apart.
I like the idea of structural change but there is a problem – the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I mean the office, not the present incumbent (although he illustrates the problem). Conservatives in this country and abroad would never accept an ABC who conducted same sex marriages, let alone a lesbian as a future ABC. Equally, the present situation of an ABC who claims to be ‘joyful’ about same sex couples while refusing to even bless their ‘committed friendship’ is obviously a problem. At parish level a separate province of sorts is a solution but I don’t know if it… Read more »
Unfortunately that seems to apply on all sides. As does the “the arrogance and certainty to know what God does or does not bless”. None of which leads to an honest debate.
You are being disingenuous because of course someone in an ongoing relationship is also ‘unrepentant’ in the eyes of the traditionalists so they do teach that someone in that position would go to Hell.
Orthodox Christians such as myself disagree with your perspective.
However we profoundly object to conevo bullies who just want to show the world they are right by picking a fight at every opportunity.
Such people are generally much less intelligent than they think of themselves and their analysis falls apart under any kind of scrutiny.
You are right to demolish such an example in your point above
Not the most helpful way of putting it. If someone consciously and deliberately chooses sin, that’s another way of saying that they are choosing to damage their relationship with God.
So, yes, you are indeed saying that lesbians who have sex in committed relationships (whatever we call them) will go to Hell.
I personally said nothing of the kind. Indeed, it would be as well for each and every one of us to pay much more attention to our own relationship with God than to presume to diagnose the spiritual condition of others (Matt 7:1-5)
More to the point, that is not the central conservative position either, and it is false to say that it is.
Some conservatives do indeed say that those who indulge in what they often call same sex genital activity will go to hell. The irony is that this is clear contrary to evangelical teaching on salvation which says that we are saved entirely due to what Jesus has done and not what we have done. You can be saved by Jesus (and accept that salvation) and be a very disobedient Christian but your salvation is not cancelled or put in doubt due to your sin. This is basic evangelical teaching – or at least it used to be.
Exactly so. The teaching on salvation that you describe is indeed the central conservative position, contrary to what some people claim.
But it is not what some conservative evangelicals are saying.
“Some” is not the same as “central”.
“You can be saved by Jesus but your salvation is not put in doubt due to your sin”.
That is a preposterous rendering of the conservative position.
You really do need to stop issuing these huge authority statements from a position of complete biblical ignorance
‘The irony is that this is clear contrary to evangelical teaching on salvation which says that we are saved entirely due to what Jesus has done and not what we have done’.
That’s Calvinistic teaching isn’t it rather than evangelical? Completely unscriptural of course. The bible makes it very clear that it is possible to fall away from the faith and thus forfeit heaven.
I think it’s rather unhelpful, though, to regard sin as a sort of tariff or ledger balance where at the Last Day, St Peter adds up the two columns and decides which of the two has the higher balance. It’s more about forming a relationship with God which will reach its culmination on that day in which we will be willing and able to accept His love, or not.
That is so totally false.
Weekly, conservative religious leaders thunder against GLBT people in physical same-sex relationships that they are going to Hell.
If you want some kind of dialog, then at least be truthful about the conservative position.
Jayne Ozanne’s statement is spot on.
Just so everyone sees what the Church Times has written: “MPs plan to put pressure on the C of E after Welby’s disestablishment remarks by FRANCIS MARTIN 02 FEBRUARY 2023 “LAMBETH PALACE has expressed dismay at reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury told MPs that he would rather see the Church of England disestablished than split the Anglican Communion over the issue of same-sex marriage. “Archbishop Welby made the remarks in a private meeting with parliamentarians on Monday. The Church Times understands that it was put to Archbishop Welby that the Church of England’s current position on same-sex marriage was… Read more »
Readers may be interested in another response to the ’14 bishops’ article: this thread on Twitter by Dr Jonathan Tallon
https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Tallon/status/1621821241593053184?s=20&t=BcuHzdyBl5FAS9w8IIBNGw
On reading the Tallon thread I am provoked to reflect on the scriptures, as to whether in fact the apostolic position is not to be the slightest bit interested in procreation. Marriage as an “ultimate” metaphor in the New Testament thereby becomes about the relationship of God and the people of God, rather than one about a male and a female human coming together to create a new life. This reflects the focus of the New Testament on the imminence of Christ’s return: what’s the point in trying to establish a lineage, providing for inheritance to posterity, when we expect… Read more »
From today’s Observer: “They (MPs) discussed moves to repeal the 1919 Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, which devolved legislative power from parliament to the C of E.” This, more than anything, might make some people sit up and take notice. At a stroke GS could be gone and Parliament could take back control. All legislation, all Crown appointments if they wished, and the Church of England would be brought to heel. I doubt it will come to that, but it does show how exasperated some parliamentarians are becoming. Disestablishment is not the only choice before MPs. As for a… Read more »
It is clear that next week’s Synod is not going to be a good advertisement for the Church of England no matter which flavour of it you prefer – or indeed if you are a crypto- Congregationalist- which I presume is an insult but have to say doesn’t really cut it in a normal playground…. All I have been able to think of reading these comments is TS Eliot’s mighty Ash Wednesday, and in particular the second section where the bones ‘ sang, scattered and shining We are glad to be scattered, we did little good to each other…..’ At… Read more »
The question is, at what point does The King become thoroughly exasperated by the bad publicity surrounding the archbishop expected to crown him? And what does he do – he has always been one to intervene in matters, even against the advice of his courtiers. I don’t see any chance of the bad headlines stopping for the coronation. Indeed, the bishops have guaranteed the brouhaha will continue past then by not having the new pastoral guidance drafted in time for this session of Synod.
The Church of England will also now have failed to persuade many Parliamentarians that it should be exempted from any conversion therapy ban. That could prove to be an own goal for the con evos.
Talk of repealing the 1919 Act is indeed remarkable. Since the Westminster Parliament won’t want to busy itself with running the CoE day-to-day, I expect the structures would be left in place, but marriage canons altered (similar to how Westminster vetoed the 1928 Prayer Book).
Regarding structural provision, as firm supporter of equal marriage I’ve advocated making non-geographic provinces available for dissenters: they’d prevent the diaster of property lawsuits seen when TEC/ACNA split; and so too any rearguard attempt to disrupt the CoE welcoming all regardless of sexuality.
First of all to ‘she who calls herself Susanna’, loved the resort to TS Eliot. I have always loved his writing and the way he taps into myth, ritual, and the numinous. But to Jeremy: if I may add the link to the Observer article. It appears to me that there are various approaches unfolding. The most likely immediate outcome from Synod this coming week is that the Bishops’ motion will be carried, supported (extraordinarily) by the very groups it discriminates against… I find it really disappointing that groups like Equal, and Inclusive Church, are urging Synod members to support… Read more »
I fear it’s a bait and switch so some groups vote for the proposal in the hope it will help gay clergy only for that door to be shut in their face in 3 months by the pastoral guidance.
It is ludicrous for inclusive churches to ‘welcome’ a motion promising the definitions and details 5 months later, when for all we know they may forbid gay priests and ordinands from civil marriage, or allow diocesan bishops to follow their own consciences rather than a whole-church edict. The Bishop of London’s motion should NOT be welcomed, because we don’t yet know what it really implies. Personally I don’t think it should be ‘welcomed’ because it disrespects half the church’s conscience over gay marriage, and embeds the dominating and conservative and discriminating doctrine on marriage for 5+ years to come. People… Read more »
Absolutely, which is why mainstream “liberalism” (as represented by Theo Hobson’s recent article in which he airily dismissed the imperative of “justice delayed is justice denied”) can’t be the last word on this. Equality and now.
You are exactly on the nail Susannah.
We learnt with BREXIT the dangers of voting for something and only finding out the detail later.
Simply from the principles of due diligence, how can anybody vote in favour at General Synod only knowing half the picture.
It’s not that fundamental details have not yet been published about how LGBTQ+ priests and laypeople in relationships will be treated, they have not even been worked out by the bishops.
And yet synod is still being asked to vote.
One has to be suspicious why the vote has been scheduled before the details are published
I have been called lots of things, as a conservative evangelical, over the last thirty five years.
Crypto-Congregationalist is new one.
Conservatives value episcopal government as much as any other Anglican. We just want it done properly.
With respect to ABC’s reported comment that “he would rather see the Church of England disestablished than split the Anglican Communion over the issue of same-sex marriage”, I do not understand why he believes that this is an ‘Either, Or’ issue. What grounds (apart from wishful thinking) does he have for thinking that disestablishment would avoid a split? Personally I expect that disestablishment of the CofE, with attendant loss of rights & privileges, would actually encourage splits in England. Furthermore the rest of the so-called Anglican Communion would have no incentive to regard disestablished Canterbury as having any relevance to them,… Read more »
This is the link to Jayne’s amendment – note especially section (e). If there was a lay majority vote that would add extra argument for MPs as it would demonstrate that most people in the Church are being held hostage by a minority and the ‘tyranny’ of the bishops being willing to impose ‘conservative’ discrimination on people’s religious consciences.
No it wouldn’t, to be honest. After 26 years on General Synod, I became convinced that the only totally representative constituency is that of Diocesan Bishops, as they are all on. My totally, personal subjective hunch is that, next are the clergy, although the “archdeacon effect” doesn’t help. If my last 2 congregations are anything to go by, then the house of laity are the least representative. But as I say this all, subjective. Bye the bye, I humbly suggest that Parliament actively engaging in repeal of this or that Measure or Act, while emotionally satisfying, is actually so much… Read more »
What is “an archdeacon effect”?
Long ago when the world was young, there was a protected constituency for Archdeacons; each diocese elected one. When this was abolished, they had to stand in the ordinary House of Clergy elections and they did. The effect was that non-senior clerical representation was reduced by some 40 or so places as the clergy electorate almost always elect an archdeacon. While their expertise in various fields may be welcome, there are other consequences. Hence ” the archdeacon effect”
Graeme
Thank you
Why I believe supporters of gay marriage in the church should have the courage to take more radical action if Synod and Parliament don’t reverse the bishops’ proposals… because the harm’s being done NOW, not in 5 or 10 years’ time. You may dismiss the following comments as ’emotional’. But we should be emotional. Just to be plain, I fully support Jayne Ozanne’s excellent amendment, and I hope at least lay Synod members will pass it. In my view, we need more of a head-on courageous approach like Jayne’s. We should not be accepting or ‘welcoming’ this discriminatory package in its fullness… Read more »
There is some shocking comment on this thread which purports to be from an orthodox perspective and is clearly intended to frighten people with the threat of hell in relation to same sex relationships I wanted to comment on it from an authentic conservative perspective. The issue of Judgement is a subject that has to be addressed with meticulous care in public preaching in which enormous care is taken over that public explanation. It may also need to be addressed in one to one conversation, but again with intense thought and attention to the gravity of what is being said.… Read more »
I quite agree that this is not the mainstream conservative position. That’s why I thought it regrettable that Jayne Ozanne should have claimed that it was.
You are, not for the first time, being disingenuous.
I applaud your moderate language and the integrity of your posts here, Peter. On the Hell thing, my view is that we should never define anyone as going to Hell. Judgment is real, but that belongs to God. All that said, I have it on record, from my correspondences with bishops, that for some of them sex inside marriage between a man and a woman is “a first order, Salvation issue”. I’ll leave what that precisely means to them, because it’s not up to me to say who will be saved. But it sounds like they feel those who practise… Read more »
The traditional Roman Catholic distinction is between mortal and venial sin. The bishop in question is presumably trying to articulate that sex outside marriage is a mortal sin without using those words.
In a couple of threads over the last few days I have noted references to parliamentary sovereignty over the Church and its potential reassertion in the light of the present LLF deliberations. Rather fortuitously, the formation of the Enabling Act 1919 has been the subject of a new article, just out, by the notable historian of interwar Britain, Philip Williamson: ‘The Church of England and Constitutional Reform: the Enabling Act in British Politics and Religion, 1913-1928’ Journal of British Studies, v. 1 (Jan. 2023), at 1-31. Absent biographies of Randall Davidson and William Temple (who in 1916-19 was actively involved… Read more »
Andrew Bonar Law, oops!