Updated 13.00 Monday
Christian Today has a report this morning, headlined as: EXCLUSIVE: Evangelical bishops issue blunt warning to Church of England on sexuality which says that :
Anglican evangelical bishops have warned of ‘major problems’ and the danger of division if the Church of England changes its stance on sexuality.
Eleven leading evangelical bishops have issued a joint letter in which they say that the traditional Christian view of sex as being for heterosexual marriage alone ‘is the teaching of Scripture’ and ‘therefore expresses the character and will of God’…
…The letter has been signed by the Bishops of Carlisle, Shrewsbury, Durham, Ludlow, Birkenhead, Willesden, Peterborough, Plymouth, Blackburn, Maidstone and Lancaster…
Four of the above are diocesans (Carlisle, Durham, Blackburn, Peterborough), the others are all suffragans, and the See of Shrewsbury is currently vacant.
The article also reports that the full text of the letter can be found at the website of the Church of England Evangelical Council. At the time of writing (noon on Monday) what can be found there is only the following:
A letter from evangelical bishops to the ‘Living in Faith and Love’ coordinating group
Bishop Julian Henderson, President of CEEC, writes : ‘In response to repeated requests from around the country, a number of evangelical bishops have produced a letter which they are sending to Bishop Christopher Cocksworth and the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) Coordinating Group. It asks that the LLF work takes seriously the biblical evidence and the church’s traditional understanding of it regarding identity, marriage and relationships, hears the voice of the Anglican Communion and understands that for many evangelicals, change in the Church of England’s teaching and practice has serious consequences. We are aware that a position of no change equally has serious consequences for others and our letter therefore assures the LLF Coordinating Group of our prayers as they wrestle to know the mind of Christ.’
Update
The full text of the letter is now linked, and can be found here.
If they genuinely believed in the holiness of marriage ..they would have begun this dispute with heterosexual marriage..which has been reduced to the opinion of the local cleric when it comes to re-marriage after divorce in the Church of England. Furthermore conservative evangelicals cannot agree on divorce and re-marriage and what the Bible teaches. Look at the Reform Covenant they slyly side step the controversy.Shame on them for inconsistency and hiding their sola scripture problem of what the bible actually means. Proposition of evangelicals..The Bible is our clear sole authority. The reality.. don’t press us on divorce or expose our… Read more »
Is Peterborough no longer a diocese then?
Yes, of course it is. My mistake, now corrected.
All these bully-boy threats. It’s almost as if they’re worried they’re losing the argument…
On the contrary; they’re worried they’ve long since lost the argument and they’re worried that the current inertia will soon run out.
And bully-girl too? Lancaster definitely female!
Surprised that so few bishops are signatories to this letter, truth be told. Despite the references to intellectual engagement the letter remains full of the same stale assumptions: that there creation is solely complementary and binary, that anyone seeking change has simply (poor unenlightened things) capitulated to culture, that it is possible to choose our identities and that only two forms of identity (male and female) can be in Christ, and that a reformed and reforming church has not business acting as such in relation to doctrine, and that this issue can be resolved simply by being ‘nice’ to the… Read more »
Always interesting to note who hasn’t signed – Southwell and Nottingham, Guildford, Leeds, Birmingham are notable absentees. Others?
Ambition tends to breed caution.
Europe has not signed, either, nor Coventry, Liverpool, Chester or St Albans, who are all evangelicals. Ditto Huddersfield, Bradford, Woolwich, Stepney, Lewes. If my ‘insider information’ is correct, a draft of this has been doing the rounds for some weeks, and there has been an agonised ‘shall we, shan’t we?’ about publishing as several significant Evangelicals refused to sign. They attempted it last year, and buckled out through lack of support, even though both archbishops indicated they would welcome such a letter. So this is round two, and we can safely assume it has been published with at least a… Read more »
This is so sad as it appears to pre-empt the whole LLF process. It appears to say that if you don’t produce what we want, then we’ll have nothing to do with you or it. The church has been asked to wait in faith and hope for the outcome of that process. Those involved in the work need the prayers of everyone even more with this hanging over them.
I don’t think the Evangelical bishops are the only ones trying to move things in a particular direction at the moment. Progressives have been quite open about doing so, much to the irritation of Evangelicals. For me this is just exactly what you’d expect these bishops to say and I’m surprised that it’s taken them so long to get organised. The progressive bishops got their act together some time ago.
I agree with you Simon. The thing is that I think this debate needs the contribution of theologically mature conservative voices. Which is what makes this letter so desperately disappointing. There isn’t any sign they are aware that the questions they raise have been engaged for some time – not least among those within their own tradition.
I have always thought that the issues around homosexuality and same sex marriage are likely to be a far more divisive force in the Church of England than the ordination of women as priests and bishops. This latter debate lasted about 20 years and had disastrous consequences for the denomination. Membership took a severe dive and a good number clergy handed in their notice. As an example, the Catholic Church has been able to ordain about 700 former C of E clergymen in the last 25 years. There is no record of the numbers of lay folk who deserted the… Read more »
It’s obvious Paul Waddington is not being serious. The moral authority of the RC Church has reached almost zero. I well remember that doughty opponent of same-sex marriage, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, launching a huge campaign against it, until his long-term boyfriend was revealed. There have been gay sex scandals in seminaries in Ireland, Rome, the USA, Chile and other countries which indicate the well-known fact that gay men occupy a huge percentage of seminary places. It remains to be seen how long a gay-led Church can continue to be homophobic. Any anti-gay Anglican cleric who thinks he can find refuge… Read more »
If that is the case, FrDavidH, there are about 700 former Anglican clergymen living on that planet.
Furthermore, the population of that planet continues to grow. The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham alone ordained a further ten men to the priesthood this year.
The ordinariate depends for its existence on disaffected Anglicans so has the seeds of self destruction built into it. Mr Waddington totally ignores the RC Church’s dependency on ordained gay men. RC seminaries are emptying. No amount of anti-gay former Anglicans will meet the needs of a Church which depends on gay men whilst describing a huge number of its clergyman as “disordered” because of their sexuality.
Agreed – the Ordinariate depends on disaffected Anglicans. That is what it was set up for. The good news, so far as the Ordinariate is concerned, is that there are plenty of them, and that they keep on coming.
I think Paul, that you are absolutely on the money. There may well be no C of E in a few years time. I am an ordinary worshiper and as such I hear the murmurings. The debate has been suppressed. I think that many more will leave.
I say your argument about the ordination of women is tendentious….
I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
The problem is that outside the hardcore fringes of the Christian right, same sex marriage is a dead issue. It was contentious. There were wild prognostications as to the disasters that would ensue: the thousands of pieces of legislation that would have to be amended, the collapse of marriage as an institution, crazed zombies roaming the streets sucking the blood of the young (that last might be a slight exaggeration). But it’s been de facto, in the form of civil partnerships, available in the UK for approaching fifteen years and de jure for approaching five years and…nothing. No legislative chaos.… Read more »
Shall we review the matter in 2025?
If anyone fancies betting on “how much smaller will the Church of England be in 2025, and will it at that point appear likely to show substantial signs of recovery or will it look destined to shrink further and faster over the following ten years?” then I’d say it’s quite bold to back anything other than “about 50%” and “that slope looks nasty”. As I often say, there is a Spinal Tap quote for all purposes. And so: Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they were booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that… Read more »
I’m not entirely convinced of the causal relationship between the sexuality debate and falling numbers. Part of the problem with the CoE is its increasingly confessional nature with expectations of signing up to vogueish definitions of words and concepts, as opposed to the societal church where you could attend Mattins or Evensong, thinking your own thoughts without being embarrassed or put on the spot. Personally, I would no more preach on sexuality than I would on how to clean your teeth: I preach on the things that the Lord said and did. Here is a vision of the CoE in… Read more »
There could perhaps be a few Newmans or Mannings or Fabers.
That will work. Join the Roman Catholic priesthood to avoid being exposed to all that homosexuality.
Simon – can I remind you that the C of E are not without their problems with regard to homosexual abuse too?
No one is talking about abuse, April. You have shown your true feelings in implying that all gay men are abusers.
April, Thank you, but I was not talking about abusive relationships, but about those people who choose to live in mutually supportive loving same-sex relationships. Of course some of those relationships will be lived openly, and some kept discreet depending on the context.
Could it be argued that to regard all discussion of homosexuality within the church as a discussion of abusive relationships is itself abusive?
I agree, it could work very well.
Please remember that there is also traffic in the other direction – but figures are not kept centrally, I understand.
This may be so, but is comparing a trickle with a torrent.
A bishop must be a focus of unity! A bishop mustn’t do or say things that some of their flock cannot abide!
No?
My bishops are homophobic and discriminatory every day. I can’t abide it. But they seem to cope with offending me and people like me OK. Funny how it only works one way, isn’t it?
It’s a ridiculous double-standard. I’d broadly speaking defend the right of these bishops to say what they do (though I disagree with them heartily) but the attitude that forces bishops with more inclusive views of the gospel to be silent (or that denies preferment to enormously able priests because of their sexuality) is deeply hypocritical.
“This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them.”
I know that Darwinism contradicts creation stories in Scripture, but I’m confused that dinosaurs seem to have reappeared as evangelical bishops in the Church of England. It won’t take long, however, for them to become extinct.
Hoho. All but two signatories (ex-Shrewsbury, Lancaster) were born 1952-1956. So not long. The CoE’s position was destroyed by allowing birth control, which meant that genital activity wasn’t any more only about procreation, and delight matters. Trouble is, the church has no coherent theology of desire and delight/pleasure. Instead, it’s obsessed with pain and suffering – it causes plenty. Is there a theologian working on delight/pleasure? When theology and biology disagree, theology needs changing. End of.
Delight/Pleasure; Song of Songs with a dose of Ecclesiastes would be a good starting point.
There is a very excellent lecture by Rowan Williams on ‘The Body’s Grace’ which does examine delight, mutual bodily communication, vulnerability one with another. I found it a most helpful and insightful read. 1989, and now part of a series of essays collected in ‘Theology and Sexuality’, Eugene Rogers, Blackwells, 2002
Available on pdf as well via Google books. A very useful read, thanks for signposting it.
Christian brothers and sisters, there is only one pathway into these matters of difference and upset and that is prayer: and especially prayer for the people we don’t agree with, not necessarily for God to change their minds, but to really try to listen to their position and understand. I do *not* see this letter as an expression of homophobia. I see it as an expression of sincerely held faith. Bishop Pete posts here from time to time (and kudos to him for that) and he’s signed this letter. My view of him is that he is a realist. And… Read more »
I should add one final point and then I’ll keep silence: the letter says we cannot “simply abandon what we have received in order to appear relevant and avoid feeling uncomfortable.” It’s not about trying to be relevant… you don’t have a sexual orientation to be ‘relevant’… and it’s not about some church ‘marketing campaign’ striving to seem trendy and relevant to sell its product. It’s about justice and compassion, two profoundly biblical and apostolic concepts. Lesbian and gay people are stigmatised on the street – the bishops may be alright walking hand in hand in the street, we are… Read more »
Thank you Susannah, I found your comments on this really helpful. Putting this in its evangelical context has helped me to get a better understanding of their point of view.
‘I do *not* see this letter as an expression of homophobia. I see it as an expression of sincerely held faith.’ It’s both Susannah: a sincerely held faith that is homophobic. Motivations and intents matter little in our lived lives: outcomes and consequences matter a lot. Homophobia is homophobia whether it is the result of ‘sincerely held faith’, ignorance, culture or whatever. Call it by its name. 100 per cent important to understand where our brothers and sisters in faith are, essential to pray for those -these 11 and those they represent- who persecute us, and essential to call it… Read more »
Hi Andrew, do you mind if I offer a quick defence of the other side? I would equally say that false teaching is still false teaching whether or whether not it comes from a sincerely held faith. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I presume the consequences you’re talking about are ill-treatment (leading to depression/anxiety) of LGBT members of the church? We are trying jolly hard to make sure that these unintended consequences don’t happen in the future, while being faithful to our convictions on what we believe is God’s good and unchanging word. We want to create a culture… Read more »
Continuing on the subject of this letter, and the article ‘Guarding the Deposit’ which informs it, it is argued that “introducing changes… has consistently divided Anglicans” implying that any change on human sexuality will divide the Church. But Anglicans are already divided and have diverse views on these subjects. No uniform view can be imposed without crushing people’s consciences. That alone, on all sides, should prompt us to careful prayer and compassion. People – whatever their views – feel they are being placed in impossible positions. Those who champion what, for them are traditional and apostolic views on human sexuality… Read more »
Yes Susannah. That was the Church that was.
I started off writing a long screed for this and then changed my mind. I shall keep it simple. When I read this letter, I was heartened. I thought at last, some of the Bishops are taking seriously what their grass roots congregations are saying to them. For too long we have compromised and reinterpreted the Bible and the Word to accommodate diversity and inclusion. For me, as for many I know, red lines have been crossed time and again and we have clung on to the C of E not wanting to rock any boats. There is only so… Read more »
A very thoughtful comment April.
I would say that the fact ‘such minorities have taken the CofE by storm’ is because that is the way the Holy Spirit has directed us, and we have spoken. Is the fact you can’t speak out easily may perhaps a sign that your opinions of LGBT people may not be from God at all?
I’m sorry if that comes across in a harsh way but I have to tell you the truth.
I think april’s post indicates just how cloistered we can be in our silos within Anglicanism. I know plenty of folk who have doubts about the theology of equal marriage, or simply don’t think that there is any place for sex outside of lifelong heterosexual marriage. I don’t think I’ve met anyone who thinks that they should cause a schism if they’re not allowed to impose their view on others. I know my own diocese lost members of one congregation when SEC synod voted to permit equal marriage but most of those who oppose equal marriage have been able to… Read more »
A very sensible comment from Jo B.
I find the bishops’ letter very odd. They keep using ‘therefore’ when it appears to me there is no logical connection. It looks like an attempt to make a series of assertions look like an argument.
Ordinary vicar issues blunt warning to bishops.
Pay attention. This may come as a bit of a shock.
How many people around the parishes do you think tell me their main reason for not coming to church is issues of human sexuality?????
(That would be no one so far, but I’ve only been at it for three decades)
I have had countless people tell me exactly that – and some of them keep their children away from church for that reason – one diocesan bishop told me that his daughter won’t come back to church until we have sorted out “the misogyny and homophobia” – and I’ve only been at it for 37 years.
Call me sceptical, but I suspect even if this issue were sorted out in the way most progressives want it would make little difference in terms of evangelism. People will always find an excuse not to go to church so long as it offers them nothing they can’t get elsewhere more cheaply and with less effort.
Most sane comment in the thread. Thanks.
Jeremy, do you think there might be a “selection bias” in what people tell you?
The same bias of course operates with conservative evangelical bishops and for all of us, all the time. It doesn’t mean that there’s not truth in what Jeremy hears. I’m also sure he’s smart enough to know that he’s not going to be hearing a representative sample of the breadth of opinions (though I’m fairly sure he’s had to hear a lot of unpleasant opinions from the extreme side over the past couple of years.)
Inclusivity is not a magic cure for church decline, but just as surely nor is conservatism.
Quite possibly. But these things work both ways. People just melt away from the Church year after year, and nobody does the tough and rather discouraging work of going and finding out why they have stopped being part of this worshipping community. Hardly anyone is doing systematic work on why – though if anyone is it will be Linda Woodhead, that bete noir of conservatives. People who suspect their clergy are less than LGBT affirming are not likely to tell them that the attitudes they find at their parish church are part of why they are not bothering to come… Read more »
Honestly, I am neutral on the LGBT question – my personal preference is for an inclusive church, but – at the same time – it is not an issue that I talk/think about much or one that defines me. I accept that the affirmation of the LGBT community will be a barrier to some, but I wonder how often it is really the defining issue for someone in relation to the church. Surely, there are 5, 10, 15 other issues that people will come up with, in addition. I would therefore counsel against making this the central issue. I accept… Read more »
Not sure I agree with you Nick. I am a cisgendered heterosexual happily-married parish priest myself, so you could say the church’s position on LGBTQI issues doesn’t directly affect me. But it does directly affect many of those I know, including friends and members of my own family, as well as people in my congregation. And it likewise affects friends and family of many of heterosexual people in the church. So in the end, many of us not ‘directly’ affected nevertheless are frustrated, angry or just embarrassed at being part of an institution which (as things stand) requires discrimination against… Read more »
” I accept for those directly impacted, it will – necessarily – be the central issue, and that is fine. But, for the majority, I am not sure it crosses their mind.”
Odd, then, that the Church of England and its members made such a fuss about apartheid. Since none of its members were black South Africans, who cares?
In fact, by this logic the CofE should have no internationalist policy at all: who cares about people starving in Africa, as we aren’t starving Africans ourselves?
There are many reasons a person might reduce giving, and I don’t think anyone other than the treasurer or similar would, or should, know it has happened. Do vicars scroll through direct debit lists? Isn’t it confidential? If a person is in financial difficulty he might not appreciate the treasurer or planned giving co-ordinator turning up demanding to know why he has stopped giving. It is sad nobody talked to you, but I don’t think a reduction in giving per se can be construed as a sign of dissatisfaction. Perhaps a Jenny Geddes style protest might be more effective (she… Read more »
Tweedledee, the bishops who have signed this letter. Tweedledum the bishops who don’t as clearly speak up that the treatment of LGBTI Christians is abhorrent for anyone who reads Scripture. For what is the difference between those married bishops who openly express a homophobic view and those complicit through their silence? Because here’s the thing. Whether gay sex, lesbian sex or same sex marriage is aligned with or is against Scripture, is merely academic theology. It is important but still a second order matter behind the deep hurt being inflicted upon LGBTI Christians. NO competent reading of Scripture could conclude… Read more »
I know a lot of people who would share this view, Kate, and I can understand why. But for me, as an LGBT curate, there is no dividing line between academic theology and pastoral practice. If someone sincerely believes that encouraging or accepting an homosexual identity is wrong, indeed damaging to one’s relationship with God, their pastoral response cannot be anything other than to discourage it. Not to do so would be pastorally reckless, even putting souls at risk. Likewise, if someone believes homo/bi/trans/sexuality is right, and therefore upbuilding of one’s relationship with God, they can do nothing else than… Read more »
Actually, Kate, I don’t want their pastoral care. They can stuff it. I don’t trust them further than I could kick them. Pastoral care without full acceptance is just patronising rubbish. There’s nothing wrong with me that needs their being pastoral. That phrase is just used to make them feel they are doing something for us – but I don’t want anything doing for me – I want to be able to contribute like a fully grown-up adult Christian man. I want to shoulder my own load in the work of the Kingdom and stop being treated like a combination… Read more »
Adrian Hilton has just posted a thoughtful contribution to the debate on his Archbishop Cranmer web blog. It is well worth reading.
http://archbishopcranmer.com/church-england-evangelical-council-warns-redefining-marriage/
“Thoughtful” is not the term that springs to mind with regard to that mess of lies, sweeping generalisations, false dichotomies and wilful ignorance.
Adrian Hilton describes it as a letter of “warmth, compassion, reasonableness and discernment “. What compassion. They show no sign at all of either being able to empathise, let alone sympathise with the lives and experiences of LGBT Christians, and the letter makes clear that what they are mostly concerned about is the difficulties that any change will bring for themselves and those who take their view. It is breathtakingly self-centred and remarkably ignorant of perspectives other than their own inflexible reading of Scripture. That reading might be fine were it not for the fact that time and again people… Read more »
The press reports say other evangelical bishops support letter, but won’t sign? Who are they?
Why won’t they sign?
Isn’t it just a bit curious that the former Bishop of Shrewsbury, who signed this letter, said something rather different when he WAS the Bishop of Shrewsbury?
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/7896-2/
And why is he returning to parochial ministry? This is very unusual. What is going on?
Maybe he regrets signing the statement Andrew Godsall refers to in the thread below, and finds that his unreconstructed beliefs sit uneasily with the prevailing culture in the Diocese of Lichfield. Remember, +Michael Ipgrave didn’t appoint Mark Rylands: Jonathan Gledhill did!
The daft thing is, if this lot get their way and 2020 brings yet again an affirmation of the status quo ante, it’s not going to go away. The supporters of LGBT equality in the church are not going to put their hands up and say ‘you won’, we’ll believe what you believe and do what you want. Let me say this slowly, loudly and clearly: we will never go away. If this isn’t going to go on till there’s nobody left standing then both integrities have to be accommodated. This will be hard. Every fibre of my being rebels… Read more »
I think it will go on until there is nobody left standing.
It makes for pretty depressing reading. Words like “gun” and “head” come to mind. Where will it all end?……and meanwhile people’s lives are being ruined and lost. I know there ia a traditional debate about when the Middle Ages ended but I didn’t realise that parts of the Church of England are still in it. My dear brothers and sisters we have simply got to put our heads above the parapet and say and do what we feel is the right thing and not be swayed by this shilly shalling around that the establishment is doing at the moment. I… Read more »
I agree Robert. I think Sting had it about right when he said “Men go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one”. One by one we need to stand up and say ‘enough’.
Maybe the best thing is for “churches” to end. They seem to be more a hindrance to faith than a help, and determined to stand between God and Humanity, rather than binding them together. How much harm have all these “churches” caused that secular society has had to repair?