St Helen’s Bishopsgate has issued the following statement:
STATEMENT
Date 16 December 2020
ST HELEN’S BISHOPSGATE ANNOUNCES “BROKEN PARTNERSHIP” WITH HOUSE OF BISHOPS
St Helen’s Bishopsgate, following much prayer and reflection, has announced a state of broken partnership with the House of Bishops of the Church of England.
St Helen’s and many other churches have over a prolonged period called for and prayed for Bishops, as the denomination’s senior leaders, to uphold their vows to teach what the Bible says, including in the area of sex and marriage, and to deny false teaching and practice. Instead the House of Bishops is divided on sex and marriage; its official orthodox doctrine is expressly undermined by how some bishops speak and act, and by the failure to speak and act of many others. This has resulted in a muddled message and confusion for churchgoers across England. Despite their consecration vows, Bishops have overseen the appointment to influential leadership positions of people who openly advocate change to the Church of England’s doctrine and/or forms of service, and Bishops have permitted alternative services and events that do not uphold the Church of England’s stated doctrinal position on sexual ethics.
Seven years ago the House of Bishops published the Pilling Report which called for ‘facilitated discussions’ on sexuality. Earlier this month the House of Bishops published the Living in Love and Faith book, course, and library of resources which call for yet further discussion. Living in Love and Faith demonstrates the division in the House of Bishops with some sections setting out the orthodox biblical teaching but others erroneous alternative views. The overall effect suggests that the clear biblical teaching on sex and marriage is not clear. The House of Bishops is responsible for upholding biblical doctrine in the Church of England. Whilst St Helen’s is encouraged by the faithful work of some involved in the LLF project, the clarity and consistency of the bible’s teaching on sex and marriage is in marked contrast to the House of Bishops’ muddled message.
In good conscience, St Helen’s is no longer able to remain in gospel partnership with the House of Bishops until they again speak and act consistently in accordance with the plain reading and plain teaching of scripture on sex and marriage, as recognised by the church down the centuries.
The loving summons of the Lord Jesus to ‘repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand’ leads his followers into a life of rich fulfilment that stretches into eternity. Thus, when Church of England bishops depart from proclaiming and defending clear biblical teaching, it is not just a breach of the Canons of the Church of England, but more seriously it is unloving and painful to the many people within the Church of England who want to live faithful and sacrificial lives following Jesus, and it risks causing others to stray from the way of salvation revealed in the scriptures.
St Helen’s has a deep love and concern for those in the church who experience same-sex attraction, and seeks to provide support and care for such men and women in our own congregations. Sadly when Church of England leaders contradict or fail to promote the clear teaching of scripture in the area of sexual ethics, they are heard by our and other congregations to say that scripture does not matter and the personal obedience of committed Christians desiring to be faithful to Jesus’ teaching does not matter.
St Helen’s, like the great majority of Anglicans around the world, believes that scripture clearly and consistently teaches that it is God’s good plan that the only loving and God-honouring place for sexual practice is within the marriage of one man and one woman, and that this is a matter of primary biblical importance. It is not merely a ‘secondary matter’ over which faithful Christian disciples can ‘agree to disagree’, rather it is a matter of the authority of God’s word to which all disciples of Jesus Christ should seek to submit (and not reword).
Tracey, a member of St Helen’s who knew she was gay when she was 12, lived an active gay lifestyle in her twenties until she became a Christian a few years ago.
She says, “Now that I’m a Christian it doesn’t mean that I have become straight. I’ve always been attracted to girls. The thing that helped me was understanding that temptation and sin were different things. I have a choice: I can either honour God with my actions or dishonour him.”
She continues, “I find it upsetting when Christians take different bits of the Bible and say, I’ll go with this and not that, as it was quite clear to me what the Bible taught on homosexuality. There is a cost and it is tricky, but holding onto the truths in the Bible, I choose to honour Jesus. I have a wonderful church family who are incredibly supportive.”
St Helen’s is not leaving the Church of England and will remain a member of its Deanery and Diocesan structures for the most part. However St Helen’s will be withdrawing from those activities which indicate full spiritual partnership. This is likely to include the selection and recommendation of people going forward for ordination, as well as planting new Church of England churches. We have been in regular communication with both the current Bishop of London and her predecessor about our developing concerns. We are grateful that the Bishop of London has, in response, proposed working with St Helen’s to assess how the potential consequences of broken partnership could be addressed.
William Taylor, Rector of St Helen’s says, “The House of Bishops has responsibility for spiritual leadership in the Church of England-teaching the truth, correcting error and exercising discipline. Their failure of leadership over many years is responsible for the confusion that the Church of England now finds itself in. By contrast the Bible’s teaching is clear, authoritative and loving as is the historic doctrine of the Church of England. Sadly, therefore, we find that although authentically Anglican, we are not, for the time being, in gospel partnership with the House of Bishops. We feel obliged to take this step to differentiate ourselves visibly from the House of Bishops.”
He continues, “We are grateful for the ongoing faithful ministry of the Bishop of Maidstone, Rod Thomas, who is not himself a voting member of the House of Bishops but has repeatedly and faithfully raised these concerns about departure from the Scriptures. Rod will review me annually in my role as Rector of St Helen’s, with input from the churchwardens and other members of the team at St Helen’s. We will also continue to pray for the leadership of the Church of England and for the House of Bishops, especially that they will stand strong in the orthodox truths and have the confidence to be unashamed in preaching the gospel as set out in scripture – the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, no matter how counter-cultural it may seem to contemporary society.”
Many local church leaders, from different Anglican churches across the country, share similar concerns to those expressed by St Helen’s. We wish to support and remain in full partnership with these likeminded churches, who seek to teach the good news of Jesus with faithfulness and compassion and provide on-going care, love and support for those within their congregations experiencing same-sex attraction.
End
For more information, please see www.st-helens.org.uk/about/cofe and/or contact media@st-helens.org.uk
It is deeply saddening that St Helen’s has chosen to remain within the CofE. Holding such extremist views, they provide incontrovertible evidence of the sorry state the national Church has reached. What a laughing stock! It would be better for everyone if they just left and set up their own untainted huddle of homophobes.
Oooo Exciting , ” The Lord hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts “
‘Not leaving the Church of England etc et’….
Looks to me as if they’re just going to pick and choose those bits which benefit them. No sign of them leaving their building though; now that would be principled.
But it’s Tracey I feel sorry for; brainwashed into believing a false gospel of exclusion, intolerance and exclusivity as a price to pay for inclusion into this sectarian gathering.
St Helen’s is not leaving the Church of England and will remain a member of its Deanery and Diocesan structures for the most part.
So pick’n’mix to suit their own narrow views. Will they still be paying parish share?
The House of Bishops is divided on many issues, unable to make decisions on basics such as restoring communion in both kinds, so why the demand from St Helens for an obsessive focus on just one tired old subject? Why can’t they let go and accept that other points of view on this matter are valid?
Many thanks, as ever, Michael.
I suspect that they feel that they can exercise a greater degree of ‘moral suasion’ over the DBF and the wider Church if they issue threats and keep their imagined adversaries guessing.
This attitude reminds me of John Ehrlichman’s famous observation to John Dean in 1973 in relation to the doomed nomination of L. Patrick Gray to be director of the FBI. Gray, Ehrlichman argued, had been disloyal to Nixon, and so should be left to “twist slowly, slowly in the wind”.
I am a little puzzled how you can remain a member of the Church of England and yet have a broken partnership with its bishops. If you are that disatisfied with its leadership wouldn’t it be better to leave altogether?
A ‘broken partnership’ with the House of Bishops – but still happily partnered with the Church of England’s non-contributory Defined Benefit Pensions Scheme,
You’re so mean Laurence. That was my first thought too.
St Helen’s, Bishopsgate are open and honest about the issues they discuss – if only other similar congregations – ‘likeminded churches’ – were too. And if only some bishops clearly stated their views on the issues raised – especially those who hold a very different views to that held by Mr Taylor and his congregation. It is clear the LLF process is a non starter in such churches. It is undoubtedly clear that a division of the Church of England must happen, and a separate fellowship of similarly minded ‘Anglican churches across the country’ should be formed distinct from the… Read more »
“…erroneous alternative views…”
Such hubris to assume that all interpretations of scripture save your own are “erroneous”. In that direction lies theocracy.
Have always [thought ?Ed.] such attitudes were ‘blasphemy of the Holy Spirit’
I agree. I also think that insisting on a literal interpretation of scripture, such that only the words as understood when they were written is legitimate, is to assume the Holy Spirit stopped leading us and speaking to us two millennia ago. It suggests that all human knowledge acquired since–about science and psychology–is a work of evil, designed to lead us astray…no matter how many lives it may save or make better.
I don’t know what this announcement means. I served for 20 years in the C of E, and never swore any canonical oath about having a partnership with the HoB. While the wider implications of this statement show clearly that the ultra-conservative wing will not respond appropriately to LFF, I don’t really think the ‘detail’ of this rhetoric means anything at all. I believe that +Rod Thomas has the permission of the Bp of London to function within her diocese. Surely all St Helen’s is saying is that it is to that source of episcopal oversight that they are turning… Read more »
In agreement with others ‘there are bits of the CofE we like (ie the buildings they own and other stuff) but there’s some stuff that we really don’t and until everyone else agrees with us we will make these public pronouncements about how wrong everyone else is and we might like to leave but won’t’
It’s so sad. In some respects perhaps the Bishop might actually suggest to them the best course of action for their own flourishing and happiness is to leave the CofE. Until then the public attention seeking really isn’t necessary.
I don’t understand CofE politics at all, but from what I am reading, St Helen’s is staying aligned with the traditional / orthodox / historical teaching. So why should they be the ones that leave? I genuinely don’t get this line of criticism (“if you don’t like it, leave”).
For the benefit of a colleague in the USA — is it technically possible for a parish of the Church of England to leave the CofE? Who owns parishes in the CofE? Can these folks — if they choose to leave — take the buildings and land with them? Will this parish be challenged in any way if it does not pay its due to the diocesan or national Church? Inquiring minds want to know.
The Commissioners admitted nearly two decades ago that title to parochial assets, which was once vested clearly in the incumbent, is now uncertain, and that the incumbent and PCC are, in some sense freeholders of a kind, even if the incumbent (except in unusual cases) no longer has any freehold. Indeed, it has been the progressive decline in the concept of a freehold possession of a living which has arguably muddied the waters. However, if an incumbent or parish decided to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the applicable bishop, then the bishop would be within his or her rights… Read more »
It’s unclear how far their loyalty to Deanery structures extends – see this Church Times article from 2017:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2017/15-december/news/uk/london-pcc-rejects-partnerships-in-gospel-with-area-deanery
Thanks for the link Kate. Yes, pick and mix and as Froghole says these complementarian conservative evos are adept at casuistry.
Yes the Ordinariate’s failure to keep any churches reminded me of an Evangelical attempt to do the same. Some twenty years ago the Reverend Charles Raven, vicar of St John the Baptist, Kidderminster, Worcestershire, cut ties with the bishop of Worcester. This led to a lengthy stand off and eventually Charles Raven was forced out. He retaliated by founding his own church, declaring that Christ Church would cater for those wanting biblical, orthodox Anglican ministry. He moved to Kenya in 2012 and was replaced by someone who had trained at Oak Hill. The church continues to meet in a school… Read more »
Yes I remember a friend of mine in Stourport talking about the Ravenites.The term Anglican is becoming a bit slippery;I wish people would use C of E for the local parish church
A public challenge requires an urgent public response from the House of Bishops and the Bishop of London because if this is left to stand by the end of 2021 there will be a full scale rebellion underway across multiple parishes.
As per my comment above, can I ask why this is necessary? Bishop Rod Thomas has permission to function as an assistant bishop in London, doesn’t he? This announcement is worded very specifically about the House of Bishops. I don’t read in this announcement a breach of anything canonical between the parish/incumbent and the diocesan bishop (although I am well aware they do not really recognize her authority). The HoB is a synodical/juridical body that forms part of the complex system of C of E governance – but it is not a body with which a parish or a member… Read more »
Dominic, your logic only applies if the St Helens letter is empty and meaningless. Quite clearly St Helens doesn’t see it that way so arguing that it isn’t a challenge to the authority of the House of Bishops doesn’t hold water. A response, and a strong one, is needed.
As to what it means, at the least they are clearly declaring that they won’t engage with LLF which is a product of the House of Bishops. For the safety of LGBTI worshippers, that’s not something which should be tolerated.
I completely agree with Dominic Barrington here. I am puzzled as to why they have put this out and what they think it achieves. I would add that St Helen’s only represents part of the conservative wing of the evangelical tradition – though I do not deny their influence. As was evident in the CEEC video there is an attempt going on to lay exclusive claim to the brand name ‘evangelical’ . In debate with folk from this corner I am accustomed to being told ‘you are not evangelicals’ – but it just isn’t true actually. It has always been… Read more »
“e·van·gel·i·cal
e·van·ge·lism
To define it as anything else is to limit the scope of the gospel to one group’s definition.
Well, you can be pedantic about it if you like, but the fact is that, like the word ‘catholic’ (‘universal, comprehensive’), the word evangelical also has a more specific meaning.
Exactly my point, Tim. By being more “specific,” we make it difficult (if not impossible) for other Christians to evangelize in the dictionary-defined sense. The public hears “evangelism” and they imagine only one thing–the style of worship and belief that has hijacked that word to themselves.
Indeed. And it can equally be said that the ‘catholic’ position is the one that tracks with the teaching of the BCP.
The fact that these words are now being reframed is part and parcel of our age. It is certainly bewildering to those who belong to the Catholic church, whose teaching on marriage is unchanged.
Dear Tim, I think it is necessary to bear in mind that TEC has no ‘evangelical wing.’ Canadian evangelical Anglicans have no genuine counterpart in the US as a ‘party’ (cf. Wycliffe College, Toronto; St Paul’s Bloor Street, etc). This is because there is a supermarket of religious options for ‘evangelicalism’ in the US, and this fully outside the 1M TEC denomination. So the word has almost no Episcopal traction (Mr O’Neill is in TEC). In the CofE the situation is different. There is no St Helen’s Bishopsgate in TEC, no Oak Hill, Cranmer, Wycliffe, Trinity Bristol. Even Trinity Pittsburgh… Read more »
I don’t think there were evangelical parish churches like St Helen’s 60 yrs ago. My memories are of churches that used the prayer book, wore robes ( scarf/hood,north end celebration) 8am with shortened HC after mattins/evensong 2x a month ) worked the parish and usually baptised, married and buried their parishoners without much fuss. A greater emphasis on preaching, evangelism and building up the committed christians perhaps undergirded by a moderate broadly calvinistic theology, made them theologically distinctive, perhaps. They were fully integrated into clergy chapters and the local deanery and certainly felt they were different from historic english dissent.… Read more »
“Evangelical Anglicans have grown in importance………..sorry, half asleep!
A visitor can observe this today. Wycliffe Hall even 30 years ago was different ethos. The kind of diffidence toward the BCP one observes in CofE parishes does not have an exact counterpart in the US. The worship at Wycliffe College Toronto would strike one as ‘antiquarian’ at junctures. And that was not so thirty years ago. Ships passing. I was Chaplain at the CofE Parish in Fontainebleau and probably only 15% had any genuine BCP orientation. Songs, talks, family this and that, counting money on the ‘altar’, preference for “English speaking” rather than CofE. Though it is parliamentarily requisite… Read more »
I fear it is ACI…it has gone too far. Once the centrifugal forces have decisively trumped the centripetal there seems no going back. Icabod. Sociologists of secularisation said the future of Christianity in England would probably be sectarian. To the outsider (eg Aiden Nichols The Panther and the Hind)the C of E has always seemed several churches in an administrative legal framework), so increasing fragmentation/polarisation seems inevitable.
This sounds accurate to me. “Several churches in an administrative legal arrangement” that defenders believe a Nation wants — except it doesn’t.
I give thanks for that robust Low Church Anglicanism of 60 years ago. It tended to wordiness and even worthiness at times and occasionally respectability became confused for holiness (Establishment Matins!), but it’s where inter alia I learnt my love of the Psalms. Now in the rural South West, with team ministries the norm, inclusive Catholic parishes are following the same pattern of decline. Thuribles and holy water vats gather dust and even vestments often hide unloved in damp sacristy chests. Colour and ritual give way to the lowest common denominator of the via media. If this all sounds elegiac… Read more »
I hope we can use our real names as far as possible in what is a very serious matter. While I personally agree with the general drift of what FrDavid and Richard and Michael have said, I found this a completely honest and straightforward statement of the views of St Helen’s. There are no surprises here. It’s a natural working out of the LLF process, which was always supposed to encourage the frank but polite expression of opinions even if they are uncomfortable. The question this poses is whether we have now reached the point where we should stop trying… Read more »
They are talking of same sex marriage here but I suspect, by extension, that they hold similar views on gender reassignment. Is it reasonable that people like me won’t be able to go into some churches because they see me as a man, not as a woman? That’s my fear, that intolerance will be made official in some parishes. That’s a step backwards from the present de-facto situation so what you are suggesting seems to me to be regressing even further from the present terrible status quo. That cannot be an acceptable outcome.
“the frank but polite expression of opinions even if they are uncomfortable.” Except that isn’t what’s happening. It’s not the advancement of a position for discussion, in the hope of adducing the truth through the careful analysis of positions. it’s going straight in with “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and we will not break bread with them”. The only thing that a letter like this will accept as an answer is complete agreement. This is not how adults debate ideas, this is how petulant teenagers tell their parents that they no longer wish to attend the family Christmas… Read more »
Even when I was on the conservative side of ‘the issue’, I found it hard to understand our 21st century evangelical obsession with being in agreement with our bishops. When the evangelical revival began in the 18th century it was very rare to find a bishop who spoke well of it. The story is told that in the early 1800s the Bishop of London once lent his carriage to Lady Huntingdon as she was going to visit John Venn (well-known evangelical and a leader in the so-called ‘Clapham Sect’) at Clapham rectory. The bishop insisted that she be set down… Read more »
And of course, those influenced by the Tractarians and who became part of the Oxford movement and its Anglo-Catholic successors were often at odds with their bishops. But none of them actually disassociated themselves from the House of Bishops or it’s C19th equivalent.
Sounds pretty fair to me.
It really is incumbent upon those who are changing the biblical and traditional Anglican understanding of marriage and sexual activity to be the ones to leave the Communion. St.H.B shouldn’t have to leave the Anglican Church.
I support the stand of St.H.B. and their deep love of those with different sexual attractions, while holding to the clearly revealed word of the Lord regarding human sexuality.
If the word of the Lord regarding LBGTQ people had been “clearly revealed” there’d be no discussion. In his obvious infallibility, Chris Duff clearly can see there are opinions other than his own fundamentalist certainty.
The comment above should read “can’t see”
This would be true if the church has never changed its mind on anything, nor is able to change its mind. The briefest study of history would seem to indicate the opposite. What I think is actually going on here is that they sense that the majority view is starting to go against them. There wouldn’t be this level of concern if they thought that there were a few bishops and clergy who were liberal (as there always have been of course) but that they knew the vast majority were in support of them. If my suspicion is correct, then… Read more »
The other aspect of the argument relying on “the vast majority of Anglicans around the world” is that it is an admission that one’s opinion may be a minority viewpoint in one’s own national church. That was certainly the case in debates in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, and the reliance of ACNA and the other schismatics on pronouncements of the Primates’ Meeting and GAFCON.
Though I disagree with you profoundly, I have some admiration for the integrity of people who are clear and consistent where they stand on this issue. Better that than the bishops who are ‘privately supportive’ of LGBT+ people but who say and do the opposite in public.
Well said from this traditional Catholic. There are many Anglicans who do not want a free for all interpretation of scripture and tradition. The St Helen’s statement is a measured, compassionate response to the LLF material. Respondents to Thinking Anglicans should perhaps tone down the hostility. It really does not help the LGBT cause, including the many LGBT individuals who do not share your desire to turn upside down Christian understanding of marriage and sexuality.
Well said Jill, we of course should wait under the straight mens’ tables to see if any crumbs are brushed off for us. The world has moved on Jill, if the church survives it will have to as well. I have no intention of ‘toning down’ my denunciation of homophobia ta very much.
Religion can be very damaging when it mixes sex with guilt. It has taken the Republic of Ireland many decades to shake off the shame imposed by “traditional Catholics” upon normal people who suffered at the Church’s hands .We can see a similar phenomenon among Anglican evangelicals today who are imposing horrible burdens and guilt trips on vulnerable people who would be healthier without religion. Ms Armstead is a “traditional Catholic”. She will recognise the long “tradition” of gay clergy in the RC Church and CofE. Telling them they should all be happily married because of religion is an upside… Read more »
In what way is the statement measured and compassionate?
St Helens don’t follow Biblical teaching in many ways.
I remember a song by a group called the divine comedy. The cars in the churchyard. Are shiney and German. Completely at odds with. The theme in the Sermon. I see all the church. And all of its people. Squeezing themselves through. The eye of the needle. If you are going to be ultra conservative about women priests and against gay people having physically gay relationships what about all the really embarassing things Jesus said about riches? I will never cease to be amazed by the number of Christians I have met from “conservative” evangelical churches who come from very… Read more »
The Gospels tell us that being single is the ideal, but that marriage is offered as an alternative to those for whom celibacy is too much of a burden. It seems an impossible reading of the Bible to me to suggest that God, having recognised that some people need a relief, would exempt lesbian and gay Christians from it. The only way that works is if God Himself is homophobic and, since we are all made in His image, I don’t think that is possible. So, intellectually, to me the St Helens understanding of the Bible appears wrong. That’s… Read more »
Oh come now, Chris. It is perfectly easy to concoct an argument that says slavery is endorsed by both testaments of the Bible, and we know from history that initially there was uproar around abolitionist views. Should the abolitionists have been thrown out of the Church of England? Across the course of history society develops new understandings of how it works, whether scientific or moral, and churches and church teaching have evolved alongside such changes. The phrase ‘biblical and traditional…’ simply does not have enough intellectual weight to sustain your position – especially on a website with the word ‘thinking’… Read more »
The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa put forward a biblical argument supporting apartheid. So hubristic of St Helen’s Bishopsgate to think they are the last authority on the interpretation of Scripture.
Yes – I always have a problem when conservatives say that the meaning of the Bible or texts is totally or absolutely ‘clear’ on this or that issue. I’m all in favour of attending to the plain sense of biblical texts, yet it seems to me that conservatives will only emphasise the plain or obvious sense of the text when it supports their own doctrine. Conservatives as much as anyone else will depart from or distort a text’s ‘clear’ meaning when it suits their own doctrinal position. I have long come to the conclusion that the highest authority for conservatives… Read more »
My former rector was fond of noting that much of what we take from the scriptures is divorced from the context of the time when they were written. For instance, we have an image of the shepherd as being a well-respected revered profession in biblical times. In truth, shepherds were seen as generally dirty, smelly folks who were uneducated if absolutely necessary. Most didn’t own their flocks–they were the equivalent of the old-west cowhand who tended the cattle for the ranch owner. That is why their being the first to hear the news of the Messiah’s birth and their presence… Read more »
“Deep love of those with different sexual attractions” — do you think it’s deep love, or rather a deep desire to cure them.
I go and attend Richard, it really is deep love.
“This is likely to include the selection and recommendation of people going forward for ordination” I wonder what this will mean? I was a DDO in the London diocese ( 1996-2008}. St Helen’s put their ordinands through the diocesan system though they always went to Oak Hill and then went back to St Helens. I remember a few years before I retired two ordinands requested a statement of “orthodoxy” from the Bp of London and were withdrawn from the ordination at very short notice. They were subsequently ordained at St Helens by Bishop Sandy Millar. I gather in recent years… Read more »
Perry raises very important questions. Is the plan to bypass national and diocesan discernment processes? Can +Maidstone act as a sponsoring bishop – can any of the Flying Bishops do that? I thought, although they can be the ordaining bishop, they can’t be the sponsoring bishop (maybe I’m out of date about that). And who pays for the training of these ordinands, stipends and pensions?
I do wish a bishop or DDO would call the bluff of churches like this. It sometimes just causes problems later. (We had an Oxford ordinand at Cranmer once who said his ‘real’ church was St Helen’s. He did not proceed to ordination in the Church of England!)
And what of those ordinands who train at the Church’s expense and then having been ordained depart to pastor an evangelical free church. Two of mine (that I know of) have done that.
The London DDO – or one of them – is Charlie Skrine. Currently curate at St Helens, and recently announced by Rev Taylor as his appointment to be rector of All Souls Church. Maybe he could explain?
I’m rather concerned about Tracey, she’s quoted as saying that she still likes girls. This must be a safeguarding issue and I wonder if a risk assessment has been undertaken. We’re told that she is older than her twenties and it is a concern that she is attracted to girls. A man self-disclosing that he was attracted to boys would raise red flags nowadays and I’m surprised that Mr Taylor is quoting Tracey’s inappropriate desires. My lesbian friends say that they’re attracted to adult women not to girls. They might observe that a particular girl is pretty or good looking… Read more »
It may be a careless use of language. Perhaps Tracey meant ‘girls my own age’ or ‘young women’? I’ve made this point to gay men who have casually said something along the lines of “I was about 12 when I realised I was attracted to boys when the other boys in my class were discovering girls.” They don’t mean that they are *still* attracted to boys now that they are adults.
‘Girl’ is not equivalent in range of meaning to ‘boy’ in respect of age. Cambridge dictionary gives the definition of ‘girl’ as follows: ‘a female child or, more generally, a female of any age’ – whereas boy almost always refers to a male child or youth.
Indeed. Mature women often refer to ‘a night out with the girls’ or ‘the girls in the office’.
I use “girl” myself to mean a woman of any age
Sorry, but who is Tracey, and where does she say she likes girls? It seems most unlikely in a statement from St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate.
See paragraphs 8, 9, 10 of the Statement.
Thanks, Simon, don’t know how I missed that.
If Tracey’s discipleship includes the charism of celibacy she has my respect and prayers. My frustration is with her claim that those who take a different view from her on this are simply “taking different bits of the Bible and say[ing], I’ll go with this and not that”. This suggests that she has yet to thoughtfully engage with arguments for the biblical basis for inclusion (even she remains unconvinced). But if she is repeating what she hears at St Helen’s – well they are bearing false witness.
Tracey admits to previously having a “girlfriend” – presumably a colloquial term for a ‘woman’ , not a child as suggested elsewhere on this thread. If she is now celibate, I would assume it’s because of pressure from the Bishopsgate sect she’s had the misfortune to join. I have never understood evangelicalism. Why should biblical arguments in favour of inclusion carry more weight than texts against same-sex relationships? If you base your life on arguing over the contents of a book, who is to say who is right? Tracey is living by what this sect has taught her. By what… Read more »
‘By what authority is Mr Runcorn suggesting his different exegesis proves the Bishopsgate sect to be wrong?’
FrDavidH, fortunately for you, David has written an excellent book to answer your question, Love Means Love, published this year by SPCK. If you’re genuinely interested and aren’t just asking rhetorical questions, the logical thing to do would be to order a copy and read it.
A helpful suggestion.
For context, do read Stephen Parsons’ latest blog on power games in the Church (in the tranche below this one). William Taylor and St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate, are at the centre of an increasingly powerful network, not over-scrupulous about their wielding of that power. Though this presents as being about one parish, the ripples will spread much wider through the ReNew and Iwerne networks.
GAFCON Australia is threatening to “disaffiliate” from the Anglican Church of Australia. They are offering episcopal oversight to parishes who request it. They insist that they are not “leaving” ACA. Sounds similar to St. Helen’s statement. Both have choses their words carefully.
Another comment from me, if I may. By this action St Helen’s Bishopsgate absolves itself from any obligation to participate in the post LLF process. It can still pretend it is part of the Church of England but has opted out of what is supposed to be a learning and listening experience for the whole Church. It thus exposes, yet again, the hollowness of that process and the ignorance, naivety or self delusion of the Bishops who hope that ‘listening’ will somehow get them off the horns of the dilemma on which they have impaled themselves. And what a time… Read more »
I want to express respect for St Helen’s position on sexuality, and the integrity of their conscientious beliefs. Their expressed position is undoubtedly held on the basis of fidelity and their sense of loyalty to God and what God has taught them through the scriptures. I also want to express gratitude to St Helen’s as a church for times when I have been welcomed there, and in particular for the time and teaching Dick Lucas gave me, in private in his study, which was critical to my understanding of some theological issues. Where I respectfully draw the line is when… Read more »
Frankly, I am well past worrying about “right” but the red line is that worshippers need to be able to walk into any church of the established Church of England and have their legal marriage and legal gender recognised. If St Helens won’t celebrate same sex marriages, fair enough, but the baseline has to be recognition and they fall short of that. The Bible tells us to “render into Casear that which is Caesar’s”. If St Helens wants to rely upon the Bible recognising and accepting legal marital status and gender – and not trying to change them –… Read more »
“…the established Church of England and have their legal marriage…recognised.”
It depends what you mean by ‘recognised’. The Church of England *does* recognise that people in same-sex marriages are legally married. Its objection to those marriages is another matter. This point was not contested in Jeremy Pemberton’s legal action against the acting Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham.
thank you Susannah. My own views exactly, but you have put it more clearly and lovingly than have I felt able to do. The greatest gift we can give each other at this time of year when light overcame darkness is respect.
Perhaps, Susannah, you need to direct your comment here to the people who are rejecting full fellowship in the C. of E. There is no threat from us liberals to leave Mother Church, or to reject its bishops.
It would be interesting to take that statement and show it, perhaps with a few explanatory footnotes, to some travellers on the Clapham Omnibus (in the case of St Helen’s Bishopsgate, the 344). I suspect most people’s judgement of it would include words like “nutters” and “weirdos”, and not a single person would think “previously I was uninterested in Christianity, but now I see its true expression I shall get myself to EC3 as soon as I can!” This is cult behaviour. Fixation on a single doctrinal issue and the throwing of a massive tantrum because others disagree with them.… Read more »
A very strange statement from St Helen’s Bishopsgate. What do church planting and ordination training have to do with LLF?
Presumably Rod Thomas (who is licensed as an Assistant Bishop in London diocese) already does all their confirmations and ordinations so what is the issue?
A friend who was formerly the bishop’s chaplain in Ely said that conservative evangelical ordinands often had to be hastily confirmed in order for their ordinations to proceed. I doubt Bishop Rod will be overly bothered with lots of confirmation services.
Will ‘Bishop Rod’ require his ordinands to be ‘Baptized in the Holy Spirit’, which he may consider to be more appropriatley qualifying his candidates than the traditional Confirmation, one wonders?
Conservative evangelicals do not believe in baptism in the Spirit (in the Pentecostal / charismatic sense) – that is why they think the Alpha Course is dangerous liberalism. (Too much emphasis on feelings!)
It’s as meaningless as a parish church declaring, for instance, that they are in a state of broken partnership with Lambeth Palace Library, or the Church Commissioners’ Investment Department. The relationship is with one’s diocesan bishop with whom one shares in the cure of souls and to whom an oath of obedience in all things “lawful & honest” is taken.
Or a table refusing to speak to a chair. Nothing in the statement purporting to be from “St Helen’s Bishopsgate” reveals who exactly has made this announcement or with what authority. There are a few quotes from the rector but nothing else. Is this a resolution of the PCC,a diktat from some leaders group, a personal decree of the rector, or the churchwardens and patron, a resolution of a meeting of parishioners, a resolution of those on the electoral roll (most of whom are not parishoners), a journalistic opinion, a revelation from the Holy Ghost, or what? The statement merely… Read more »
T.Pott mentions the patrons. In this case it is the Merchant Taylors Company. Patron’s rights are not what they were, perhaps Froghole will enlighten us? But I wonder what the patrons think of this situation? It is not unknown for some patrons to offer “perks” to parishes of their patronage. I wonder how much interest they take in St Helen’s affairs.
A predictable development. Not quite a conevo “ordinariate”, yet certainly one step further than merely seeking oversight from the Bishop of Maidstone. Does it matter? I doubt it. Let them at it. Given everything that’s going on in the world, this is pathetically insignificant. I’m reminded of playground arguments at Langwathby village school that sometimes developed into fisticuffs about who had the belt with the best snake clasp (some boys had string for a belt). It’ll be interesting to see who follows St Helen’s example, and particularly interesting to see what happens at Langham Place given that Mr Skrine of… Read more »
Stanley, is this what you are referring to (not only about receiving a stipend, pension etc from the Church of England)? If true, this is very serious indeed.
https://anglican.ink/2020/12/08/17700/
Judith and Stanley, I continue to be appalled by the Pharisaic stance of William Taylor and his constituency (although none of his compatriots have yet sent any sign that they are supporting him. Perhaps they are worried about a Fletcher taint!) The 1967 Keele Conference via John Stott, kept evangelicals in the C of E, in spite of significant pressure from outside, especially Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones who was concerned about preserving a pan – evangelical purity. I value the richness and diversity of our tradition, catholic and evangelical. But it was never meant to be exclusive except perhaps on… Read more »
Judith I think for sometime St Helens has neither contributed to the C of E nor rwceived anything from it.
“neither contributed to the C of E nor rwceived anything from it.” please could you explain this a little more?
When Rowan was consecrated Archbish, the St Helen’s PCC decided they would pay stipends, pension contributions, housing costs etc, so the clergy are not funded in any way by the Commissioners etc. I think they also agreed they would pay the diocese directly for any services received, like legal, housing etc advice, so it was clear they were not receiving anything they were not paying for. I assume (can’t remember) that also means they are not paying parish share. Many (possibly all?) St Helen’s ordinands are funded directly by St Helen’s as well, not by Ministry Division or diocese.
Being retired 10 yrs now I am rather out of it. But I believe St Helen’s pay their own clergy. William Taylor made a statement about it sometime ago. Perhaps someone from the City Deanery they are in impaired communion with might know the exact arrangement.
Is there anyone in the City Deanery with whom they are in impaired communion?!
Hi Peter. See the Church Times article cited by Kate above. It mentions a number of City Churches described as “inclusive”.
It is, Judith. Events at Stapenhill and St Helen’s are symptoms of an insidious malignancy. With regard to SHB, if the hierarchs had any mettle they could investigate the possibility of evicting the congregation from the church and the clergy from their parsonages. They might see about charging for ordinands in training. But this won’t happen for at least two reasons. One, the presence of conevo/Iwerne sympathisers in the politburo; and two, I suspect that in law SHB would be found not guilty of canonical infringement.
Another GAFFE-CON Breakaway. The result? – A Leaner, more Gospel-oriented Church.
Hold up your heads, dear Church of England Bishops. Insist on Justice for God’s People.
On the positive side for St Helens, they are not short of either worshippers or cash. In 2019 their income was not far short of four million pounds. Meanwhile, the Church Times online has added an article about the drastic drop in projected attendance on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in the Church of England, one-third of regular worshippers stating in a survey that they will not be attending, more than one-fifth said it was because churches remain locked and they have nowhere to go.
I can’t see what the problem is with this arrangement. All we need to do is add a sixth guiding principle.
Let a thousand heresies bloom and flourish.
Hi all, I can see there’s a lot of upset from this announcement. I think I agree with most of the statement, but I want to address some things I’ve read a lot in this thread which I’d like to push back on. I hope it can help me understand other people on here better, and I also hope it can prompt others here to think too. Claim 1: St Helens are obsessed about sex and it is all they ever talk about. A quick scan of their resources library shows otherwise. Their most recent sermons include Peter’s speeches in… Read more »
As to Claim 1, I probably qualify as a (married, gay) Incumbent of a parish in the “liberal Thinking Anglicans” tradition. In 11 years, I have preached on the topic exactly twice, and we once had a 6-week mid-week study group on the Bible and sexuality, and a couple discussions in preparation for a parish vote to ask our bishop for permission to marry same-sex couples. For most of the parish, there are much more important issues than sexuality to discuss, and if I preached on it even twice a year, people would say I’m obsessed with it.
Fair enough Jim, I don’t think there’s much I can do to argue against that.
“In none of these scenarios was the motive to change doctrine that ‘society is laughing at us and the church needs to get with the times if it is to survive’”
I support same sex marriage BECAUSE I am a Christian, and not despite it, nor because society accepts it.
Regarding each of these three claims, the only reason sexuality is an issue is because people who adhere to the theology advanced by places such as St Helen’s continue to need to call LGBTIQ+ people sinners. This is why we don’t hear queer perspectives on the Biblical passages chosen as the battle ground by conservative evangelicals, even when they’re arguing from texts that sit in a framework that witnesses against them. Regardless of how often sexuality figures in sermons and teaching events, this is an issue conservative evangelicals have chosen as a campaign and on which they have been active… Read more »
Part 2 of my post: Claim 4: why do these evangelicals ignore all the inclusive bible passages while focussing on the conservative ones? Here’s why I think Galatians 3:28 (neither jew/greek/slave/free) is not a valid justification of same-sex relationships. Paul’s overall aim in the letter broadly seems to be to rebuke the Galatians for forcing gentile members of their church to get circumcised. He therefore uses this verse to say that God’s free gift of salvation extents to all sorts of people, regardless of their ethnicity/gender/job. In short: it doesn’t matter if you are a jew/gentile/man/woman/slave/ etc. if you have… Read more »
Since biblical texts are open to different interpretations, it’s vacuous to claim that God is communicating objective moral truths through ancient writings. I think Zac admits that opinions can only ever be subjective. Whilst the Bishopsgate sect may have many books in its library, it’s only those about sex that cause it to make claims highly offensive to gay Christian brothers and sisters. Perhaps they should buy some tomes on insufferable hypocrisy and pomposity.
Thanks for your reply, David. I’m not sure I did admit that opinions can only be subjective. I did say that I ‘don’t claim to have the right interpretation’ but I believe that there is a right interpretation that we should all strive for. I’m just not confident that I’ve completely understood it yet. As a side note – interpretation is a vague word here that needs defining. Here’s what I mean: there is one objective thing that the bible authors were trying to communicate to their original readers, they had an audience, and they had a pastoral intention. I… Read more »
“There is only one right interpretation” might be true if everyone were agreed on what it is. For instance, you quote 2 Peter 1.21 to prove the Bible to be ‘true’ and from God. This assumes scripture to be self-authenticating. Clearly it is not. I can’t prove I’m right just because I say so.
Regarding Claim 4, most of the discussion in the Church of England is actually about heterosexual fragility and so the use of biblical texts is conditioned by the constant need to affirm or deny sexuality in a solidly heteronormative framework. The experience of LGBTIQ+ people is marginalised for two reasons: insistence that we are defective heterosexuals (which is basically the St Helen’s position) and existing patterns of activism that deflect away from the subjectivity of LGBTIQ+ people as a defence mechanism in political advocacy. The issue is actually about whether we can theologically justify the making into a salvation-by-works of… Read more »
Thanks for taking the time to reply, on this post, and the other. I’ll respond to Gal 3:28 first – I think the ‘defective hetrosexuals’ is slightly straw-manning. From the people I know who have attended/worked at St Helens, they are very clear that they do not believe this, and there are many more that I know like Tracey, who are loved, cared for, and accepted as fully equal members of the church family. Nevertheless, you do speak of much personal hurt, and I can’t imagine how tough that must be for you and many other LGBT members of the… Read more »
Thankyou, Zac. A couple of points in reply. I think the role of resolution I.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference is critical to understanding what I mean when I say some conservative evangelicals regard LGBTIQ+ people as defective heterosexuals. I am willing to bet good money that no minister at St Helen’s would commend a member of the congregation for being engaged to marry a partner of the same sex. If we are to discuss Paul’s view of same-sex relationships, then we need to account for the Hellenic culture in which he lived. Sex between men was a fact of… Read more »
Thanks Zac – you make a number of really good points, I’d agree with much of it, although I’d take issue with your points on the history of biblical interpretation. I’d respond as follows: the main reason I’m not convinced by conservative arguments is I do not believe the Bible is morally infallible. If someone thinks they can ‘prove’ same sex relationships are wrong by quoting a few isolated verses, it can only be if they believe the Bible is morally infallible. That would mean they also have to believe in slavery, including sexual slavery, that genocide, ethnic cleansing are… Read more »
The English Reformers were careful to avoid any notion of absolute scriptural infallibility. As John Barton has pointed out on TA, that came very much later. And LLF is to be commended for offering – as against scripture as a set of moral imperatives set in stone – a vision of scripture “as a school of righteousness, of justice, and of love …shaping our desires, our imaginations, our emotions, our habits, our ideas, our relationships, our institutions, the structures of our society, and our cultures.” The pity is that LLF then draws back from making the conclusion that this points… Read more »
I can’t confess that I know tonnes about he English reformers, but I’m pretty sure that Baxter, Owen, Bunyan, Guthrie, the authors of Westminster Confession, and 1662 BCP all held to Biblical infallibility in a type that St Helen’s sorts would totally be behind.
Thanks for your reply Matthew. I’ll respond to two things. 1) If we believe the Bible is morally infallible, then we should be keeping sex slaves and exterminating ethnic groups. I don’t think so. If the Guardian reports on an ISIS bombing in London, it doesn’t make the guardian pro-ISIS, likewise there is lots in the bible where disgusting things happen, Dinah’s rape in Gen 34 being a prime example, where the author is wanting us to feel so uncomfortable about sin that it makes us wonder how god is still able to bless such a wicked family. I think… Read more »
Thanks Zac. I’m not talking about what the Bible merely describes. All the examples I gave were from what God commands, allows or even actually does himself according to the OT. I can give you biblical references if that would help. Also, I didn’t say that believers in biblical infallibility have to believe we should be doing these things today. My point is: there are certain objective moral values which I believe hold for all times and places, not just after Jesus came or in the 21st Century. I believe that ethnic cleansing and genocide, owning of sexual slaves, murder… Read more »
Zac. The issue is a wider one than debating particular texts. It is the understanding of the bible itself – specifically what kind of revelation and authority the Bible is – and therefore how we read it for new questions that arise. The conservative approach tends to insist on a fixed and final revelation (though they are not consistent in this). This leaves them inflexible when there is a need to engage new questions. But the respected evangelical theologian I Howard Marshall insists that obedient faith always requires the willingness to go beyond the Bible text. He admits there are… Read more »
It is surely anthropomorphic to talk in terms of what God is trying to tell us, or to try and discern what God ‘thinks’ about moral questions at particular points in human history. It’s simply a tautological way of describing what WE think and then calling it “” revelation”. As Richard Holloway asserted, it is perfectly acceptable to live by a Godless Morality in accordance with Christian principles. The idea that God “thinks” about homosexuality, for instance, is laughable. Evangelicals get themselves into such a knot by having to square so-called biblical “revelation” with contemporary insights which clash with less… Read more »
‘The idea that God “thinks” about homosexuality, for instance, is laughable’
Is it? God seems to have opinions on a very wide variety of matters in the bible. e.g. most of the Pentateuch, so much of major/minor prophets, and most of the Gospels, for instance.
That there should be a divine opinion on anything do to with sex/sexuality is not a particularly outrageous claim.
God sounds very self-opinionated .I bet He has strong views on why He created LGBTQ+ people – along with heterosexuals. He’d be a silly old God if He condemned gay people to celibacy just for being how He made them.
I think I would completely agree with you, but only if this world were all there was. What I love most about being a Christian is that God promises to rescue us from this broken world, to a completely perfect new world where we will be with him physically, and there will be so sin, wickedness or tears. This life is so incredibly short in comparison. Yes I believe God calls all of us to take up our crosses, and for some, that may mean ‘being eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom’ as it were, and I don’t think… Read more »
It’s an appalling suggestion that LBGTQ people are all called to be eunuchs.
It would appear to me to be the logical conclusion of a lot of (in my opinion just plain wrong) conservative evangelical theology. Personally I wonder why God would give us such a rediculously strong sex drive as we have – that is all of us both gay and straight. It is unfit for purpose and C.S Lewis had to start to philosophise that it was part of the fall (but if Adam and Eve are symbolic characters what sort of historic fall was there?) Clearly we need to take responsibility here and hard though it is be incredibly self… Read more »
Hmm.. well no I do not think rescuing us from a broken world is actually what the bible teaches, though it is certainly what some evangelicals teach. Rev. 21-22 talks of a new (renewed?) earth / heavenly city where God comes to live with us, not that we ‘go to heaven’. Tom Wright labours this point in his book on eschatology and goes on to show that this has implications for how we live as Christians in the world now. Basically, we cannot write off this world as beyond hope. We can certainly picture salvation as rescue so long as:… Read more »
FrDavidH I understand from this that you do not believe in the idea of divine revelation then. Is that right?
Divine revelation is what the Church says it is. But it can change its mind when new insights come along from biology, physics, anthropology etc. Sadly, divine revelation is often a statement of our own prejudices.(which is what the thread is mainly about!).
FrDavidH I actually asked you whether you personally believed in divine revelation?
I’ve heard divine revelation being likened to messages being successfully received by Mission Control from an outside Entity. Sadly, I think many people think like that. God “sent” His Son, or the prophets, to reveal truths hidden to human mortals. I regard “revelation” as a magnificent human realisation – like Beethoven composing a sonata, Shakespeare’s plays, a Michaelangelo fresco or a NT gospel. Jesus is the apex of such ‘revelation’ to which we should all aspire. Who decided He was divine? We did.
FrDavidH. Thank you for making clear your belief that ‘Revelation’ is a human, not divine, activity. The claim to believe in a God who ‘speaks’, guides and reveals is a creation out of human need. This is not the time or place for a longer discussion. But this means, of course, that your argument here is not just with evangelicals – always your favourite target. This is the faith of the Church.
Christian A,B,Cs. The Faith of the Church. Thank you for a straightforward reminder.
This would be the same Richard Holloway who is now an atheist. To be clear, that makes a lot of sense and I admire him for his resolve and convictions. But as a useful source for those intending to remain faithful Christians? I doubt even he’d say that.
He has returned to the Church and is a liberal Christian.
How reassuring, if true by some measure…
Fair enough David, I think a lot of very respectable people would hold to that view. The flaw in that view is that if one does hold to the view that ‘each generation must listen afresh to what god is saying to the new generation’. under that view, one can easily say that ‘I think God is telling me that same-sex relationships is wrong and that I should lovingly warn my brothers and sisters about it’ and no has the authority to challenge them, because it is what they sincerely believe god to be telling them to this generation. While… Read more »
Thanks Zac. Yes every generation listens afresh, explores and tests what scriptural wisdom speaks into the questions and dilemmas of the age. In that process convictions will vary, as now. But this is not a flaw. It is inevitable, right and faithful. The most recent example of working this out in the church was the ordination of women (which – to make the point – SHB does not agree with of course). That example alone makes it is clear the process is much harder and more careful than ‘one can easily say’. I do not understand your last sentence in… Read more »
Yes my last sentence is a bit vague. I was using most of Hebrews to say that God has spoken authoritatively, rather than he is always speaking new things afresh to each generation. I wasn’t using it to say that Jesus speaks directly about the matter in the Gospels
Zac, there are many excellent books written by affirming evangelical people, in which they outline the exegetical method they are using. David Runcorn’s ‘Love Means Love’ is the most recent, and I would also highly recommend Karen R. Keen’s ‘Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships’. Marcus Green’s ‘The Possibility of Difference’ is also very good. Also will worth reading is Vicky Beeching’s searingly honest autobiography, ‘Undivided’. All these books are by people who self-identify as evangelicals, believe in divine revelation and have a high view of the Bible (though not necessarily inerrantist/fundamentalist). It is very hard to make… Read more »
Thanks for the recommendations, Tim. Out of interest, do you know whether any any of the people mentioned also believe in Biblical infallibility? I’d be particularly interested to hear the voice of that (presumably narrow) subset.
As for the other view, I would certainly recommend the plausibility problem, Gay girl Good God, and seven myths about singleness;
I don’t know, Zac. I know a lot of people who tell me they believe in biblical infallibility, but when I look at what they believe and how they live, it’s clear to me that they actually don’t.
As for books about ‘the other view’, i was in that camp for decades. I’ve read Robert Gagnon’s ‘The Bible and Homosexual Practice,’ William J. Webb’s ‘Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals,’ Richard Hays’ ‘The Moral Vision of the New Testament,’ and several other standard books arguing for variations of the conservative position. I used to find them persuasive. Now I don’t.
One does wonder how far a word like ‘evangelical’ can stretch. For some it is ‘all those people we don’t identify with.’ For others, once one starts adding adjectives like ‘affirming,’ it is yet another way to denominate or confuse (it ‘works’ inside one tribe, but does not translate well outwith). I have appreciated the work of Andrew Goddard and his colleagues in the CofE. If he is not an ‘affirming evangelical’ is he an anti-affirming evangelical? I suppose the moving-target use of a term like ‘catholic’ amongst Anglicans ought to expect the same with ‘evangelical.’ We are in a… Read more »
‘One does wonder how far a word like ‘evangelical’ can stretch.’
Christopher, I’m certain that for the St. Helen’s people the place it can’t ‘stretch’ to is acceptance of same-sex marriages. A curious line to draw in the sand, although I confess I once drew it there myself. This issue wasn’t in any of the historic evangelical confessions of faith, nor is it mentioned in David Bebbington’s well-known summary of evangelical essentials. However, since I changed my mind on the subject, I’ve already had lots of experience of being told that I’m not really evangelical any more. Oh well.
My point isn’t what people call you, but whether introducing labels and subsets just means the terms don’t mean anything much. An ‘affirming’ evangelical makes it sound like the alternative is ‘non-affirming’ — not very, well, affirming!
None of this makes much sense to me anymore (as someone who never claimed the ‘evangelical’ label).
It is not clear who is drawing lines in the sand. One could equally say, “those who drew a line so as to indicate the older BCP teaching was outmoded.”
Merry Christmas
Because it’s not as if there’s anything else going on at the moment! Lives and livelihoods are being destroyed on their very doorstep and all they have to tell us about is their “prayer and reflection”.
It won’t stop their capacity for community outreach – why should it? If you want to know more, why not ask or visit their website?
‘Broken partnership’ is an interesting phrase. I expect we will see several other large conservative evangelical churches announcing something similar; maybe as they seek a ‘third province.’ However, for the vast majority of churches up and down the land any sense of ‘partnership’ is a very vague and abstract notion.
This announcement is unsurprising, if curious. It simply reiterates much of what SHB said in 2017. However, it might be good to put some of this thread in perspective, a rare TA thread that exceeds 100 comments! However, it is about ecclesiology and church order, not theology. That there are irreconcilable opinions on same-sex marriage is self-evident SHB is well known for its conservative evangelical credentials, possible equalled by no other parish in the Church of England. However, it has always engaged to an extent with the synodical structures. Currently Charlie Skrine, Rector-Designate of All Souls Langham Place, and Debbie Buggs a prominent lay member,… Read more »
4. The reference to the House of Bishops appears ignorant, in terms of how parish churches relate to the episcopacy, but at least the statement is poignant in stating the obvious, that there is a spectrum of views in the House of Bishops on matters of human sexuality. Pilling said that, as did the controversial GS 2055 paper. 5. The statement is careful not to appear to criticise the Bishop of London, with whom the Rector and other SHB clergy stand in canonical obedience. That is refreshing, not least as the Bishop is one of the most collaborative episcopal leaders in the Church of… Read more »
Who is ‘Zac’? He says that he is not and has never been a member of St Helen’s but then tells us that he knows many people who are members or leaders there and many more like ‘Tracy’. I wonder how it is that he has suddenly popped up here to defend by biblical quotation argument the St Helen’s conservative position which most of us find a repulsive denial of the gospel to which he appears so attached.
Hello Richard. I am Zac. I’ve been reading this forum for quite a long time now, I just thought this debate was one of the few that I could actually contribute to, and here we are. If you think I’m an impostor in disguise, you’d be disappointed. I’m just a lay punter. Yes, never been a member of their church. However, I have been attending one of their graft churches which most of the staff come from (I’m now attending an independent church, but that’s because of job/location). At the church maybe 30% were previously at SHB, and others have… Read more »
I could understand an AA support group to help members refrain from alcohol. But a support group to convince gay people to refrain from sex? That is abuse.
What an interesting analogy. I’m not sure I tunderstand the conclusion. Adults can consent to the one but not the other?
[I write as a gay man who sees no reason to abstain from sex – but also no reason to impose upon others who reach a different conclusion.]
Alcoholism is an illness through which many people seek support. Being gay is normal, except to people like the Bishopsgate sect which seeks to support same-sex attraction ‘sufferers’ in their unnecessary quest for life-long celibacy.
The problem with this sort of well intentioned argument is that it is a massive slippery slope. I am inclined to agree with Kevin Holdsworth that the problems caused by banning undesirable (as opposed to clearly, unambiguously, abusive) things may be greater than the benefits. Under the guise of protecting people we see as vulnerable from doing things we thing they shouldn’t, we also deny agency to people to do things that we personally would not do. It is extraordinarily tempting to assume that no-one would attend such a “support group” voluntarily, but unless there is an unseen villain with… Read more »
Be well. Confusing times. Blessings on you in your journey of faith in Jesus Christ.
Zac: I for one have noted and appreciated your politeness, just as I have appreciated your setting out an explanation of your thinking. I disagree with you, but thank you nonetheless.
(for what it’s worth, I like to think that my position is just as biblical as yours, it’s just that I start with the biblical revelation of the supreme love of God informing everything else)
Earlier this year William Taylor put out a statement that suggested (at least to me) St Helen’s was leaving the Church of England and keeping the building (legal experts had shown etc etc). An autumn statement would follow. I awaited it with some interest. But it never came. Perhaps the legal issues relating to keeping the building were not as clear cut as was at first thought. No doubt there were interesting discussions with the diocese. (What fun to be a fly on the wall). Well the end of the year has come so perhaps it was felt something needed… Read more »
I can confirm that we (the Bishops of the Diocese of London) continue to talk to SHB, and they to us. There are obviously some questions that still need to be ironed out in relation to (among other matters) the sponsorship, training and placement of ordinands!
I am pleased to hear that.Do St Helens ordinands ever get to experience placements prior to selection in churches of a broader tradition? And how many SHB curates end up pastoring churches that are effectively outside the normal structures of the C of E? I wonder whether any research has been done on how many clergy leave the C of E within (say)5 yrs of ordination having trained at C of E expense(I realise that doesnt quite apply to SHB as they pay for their ordinands)
On another group, someone drew attention to the published accounts of the church, https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5004454/accounts-and-annual-returns?fbclid=IwAR0Eu-6XgeWAAr4pUMGdejRBT4WFRHvZSAXT7GpxUZa5xBIHV2nLDdXzL0s
I was fascinated to see the most recent risk assessment, on the most recently submitted set of accounts. The top risk identified isn’t the building burning down, or safeguarding, but “Unfaithful teaching from the pulpit or in small groups“.
146 comments! Wow In part I envy those who have so much certainty that their understanding of the bible is correct and all others are wrong. But mostly I find them repellent and non Christ like. But there is no doubt that the HofBs is a weak group who cannot exercise authority as actually they do not have the consent to do so. Just the Church of England proving again that it has become more irrelevant to the majority of the population. The institution of the CofE already considers me a second class citizen and to preserve the myth of… Read more »
So what?
There is no HATE like Christian LOVE! A very sad state of affairs, when we, as the Body of Christ cannot work together as sisters and brothers in inclusivity and equality. Not unlike the political drama in the United States. Why can we not reach out our hands in love to others? Perhaps the lost, the least, and the last are unworthy to come to the Table. We need to truly learn or relearn what love others means in the life of Jesus.
Fraser Dickson
I was taught as a new Christian that the Bible was the Plumb-line for all Truth. The Bible is as up to date today in 2021, as the day it was written. If the Anglican church had Bishops of the calibre of the late J.C. Ryle, and especially the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York, we may be a God fearing nation again!! Thank you St Helen’s for standing for the Truth.