Updated Wednesday
On 2 September we reported in Living in Love and Faith – Listening on the publication of several voluminous documents containing the collation of the 6000 responses that the LLF project had by then received. We included links to three items which attempted to place these reports in some context.
More recently, Church Society has issued a strongly worded critique: Response to Listening With Love And Faith. This page is an executive summary of their criticisms, and the full 20-page report is available separately as a PDF. Copies have been sent to all members of General Synod.
Helen King has written this in response: Living in Love and Faith: some thoughts on the Church Society’s report.
Update
The LLF team has replied to Church Society. You can read the responses from both Brendan Research and Church Army’s Research Unit here: LLF Response to Church Society Analysis (total 6 pages). This also has been sent to all General Synod members.
The Church Society make a perfectly reasonable set of points about the LLF findings, though Helen King also makes some valid counter points. There is surely little point in grappling over the issues of questionnaires. The substantive point is as obvious as it is indisputable. The findings are very limited and based on a very very small number of responses. (One response for every two parishes) People will obviously put on a brave face and insist the findings are significant. The reality is that the claim they provide a mandate for radical change cannot be made with any degree of… Read more »
The mandate for change comes from the harm being done to LGBT+ people. That’s exactly what Jesus taught us: if the vine bears bad fruit (in this case, harms LGBT+ people) then the vine is bad.
Re the Church Society challenging whether the report numerically represents the % of people in various category groups, in the general population or in the Church of England… I thought the point of the report was to reflect back the range of views, as expressed in the survey, so that we could all hear a range of opinions and reflect on them. It was not about numerical precision. It was about reflecting back people’s differing viewpoints… to contribute to and assist bishops and others as they try to find a way forward. I don’t think it set out to be… Read more »
Any report which uses words like ‘positionality’ loses the bid to be taken seriously!
I can live with ‘positionality’ (used three times) but what compromises the report for me is the assumption that the Church Society is unhappy with change from the status quo, and therefore – in crude terms – had its own reasons for doing a ‘hatchet job’ on the LLF report. Being honest, the Church Society critique does raise some valid points, but its underlying thrust of argument seems to misread what the LLF report was primarily trying to do, which was not about partiality, but providing platform for a cross-section of views that had been submitted by respondents. Views from… Read more »
I have added the responses of those responsible for the research being critiqued by Church Society to the OP. And I have read those responses, which seem to me to be a thorough rebuttal of the CS criticisms.
Do others agree?
I think you are generally right in your conclusion. However, the rebuttal does basically amount to an explanation that the findings are only really intended as a snap shot of sentiment anyway. Fair enough, but that is a lot of time and money for a snap shot. We are basically back where we were five years ago waiting for bishops to tell us what they believe about marriage. Does anybody at all think it has been a good use of five years ? I have at times taken a lot of stick on this site for pointing out we are… Read more »