Naomi makes good points. I believe it should be mandatory that churches truthfully state their positions on sexuality, gender transition, and recognition of women priests and bishops. After all, why should people be afraid of the truth?
Church statements should head up their comms – websites, Facebook pages, newsletters. A simple paragraph would do, visible and close to the top. It seems wrong to let people sign up, get involved, give money, commit… only to discover down the line that the church holds positions contrary to their own convictions and beliefs.
Ship of Fools: The Magazine of Christian Unrest has a section called Mystery Worshipper. There they regularly publish knowledgeable visitors’ reports of their worship experience at an identified congregation. I remember they once did a section on clues to the bias of individual congregations. These were about the unintended messages a congregation sends through its signage and printed materials.
It’s sad to think that once we just worried about denominational biases. Now we have worry about the unspoken bias of each individual congregation.
Define the word *Church*in light of Christ’s prayer for unity: “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21).
You are recommending a network of local divided churches that are not “one” as Christ prayed. This is a “Church of pluralism”, separated according to individual understandings of the revelation of God and personal preferences/predispositions.
Some of us live in the real world, Peter. I was going to say the church has not been “one” since the Great Schism…but on reflection, I think it has never been one. Certainly, Paul’s letters to the various gatherings in the major cities of the First Century make it clear that each had its own “understanding”.
“Some of us live in the real world, Peter. I was going to say the church has not been ‘one’ since the Great Schism…but on reflection, I think it has never been one. ” Amen to that. I don’t think the Church has been one since at least the days of St. Paul, who I would argue is the real founder of Christianity, as St. Paul took the Church in a radically different direction than the reformed messianic Judaism some of the apostles may have been pursuing. The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine to bring different viewpoints together… Read more »
Peter Do you mean that the ‘unity’Jesus expects (or even commands) means every church thinking, believing and behaving the same way? When has the Christian church on earth not been pluralist?
On the basic propositions of the Christian faith and morality, most certainly.
I’m using theological pluralism in the sense of permitting diverse and contradictory beliefs co-existing in one church by aggregating local preferences, yet still regarding itself to be in overall “communion”.
Yes, it is a church of pluralism but then our Holy Scripture is pluralistic and specifically says that different conduct is required of different people according to both their level of understanding (food in Acts and one of the Epistles) and, even if understanding is the same, according to how hard or easy it is for an individual to comply (marriage in the Gospels). There is even a difference in relation to things which some think are essential to salvation: circumcision isn’t a great debate today but for the generation after Jesus those who followed the teaching of St James… Read more »
Can you give any examples of such ‘pluralism’ in the Church’s 2000 year history on questions of faith and morals. Examples where local churches have been free to teach opposite and opposing propositions yet still consider themselves to be one “communion”? What happens is agreement or schism and division in such situations.
As for your last statement, where or when has it ever been supported that individual exegetes and believers can regard themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what Scripture means through exercising private judgement?
You have just made the change from the Bible being the arbiter of behaviour to churches having ultimate authority. I can’t buy into that. The Bible is pluralistic. If churches aren’t, that’s a deficiency to be corrected not something to take as a foundation.
“…where or when has it ever been supported that individual exegetes and believers can regard themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what Scripture means through exercising private judgement?”
Are you suggesting that individual conscience is wrong?
“Conscience” isn’t a set of emotions or feelings; it’s a judgment of reasoning. Henry Newman described it conscience as “a law of the mind.”, i.e., forming proper judgments about the morality/immortality) of actions.
Individual conscience needs to be properly formed.
Peter What is the difference between having a ‘properly formed’ individual conscience (without being quite clear the measure of that) and being an ‘individual exegete’ who regards themselves as the ultimate arbiter on an issue?
Rather, it asserts there is a Divine lawgiver who stands above fallen individual judgement and who has made these laws known through Scripture, His Church and reason.
Aha! There’s the rub–“reason”. If I have reasoned that Scripture is to be interpreted one way and you have reasoned it should be interpreted a different way, who is to say which of us is correct?
And don’t answer “the Church.” The Church is a human institution and is just as fallible as any individual human is.
I’m a bit puzzled by your penultimate paragraph – by ‘lf some people…….. decline to marry someone of the same sex’ do you mean a clergyman asked to perform a ceremony? That I can understand. I’m thinking as a layman; my genetic makeup would decline, never mind my faith’s revelation.
Parish churches cannot truthfully state their positions on such matters because, in truth, they have no positions to state. If the leaders were to state a position it would not be the position of the church. Vicars are not popes, indeed I doubt the Bishop of Rome any longer regards himself as a pope in the sense long opposed by the Protestant peoples of the world. Are you suggesting people should not be allowed to get involved in a church unless they agree with the pontifications of its leaders? If people find, down the line, that the church, by which… Read more »
A few years back, while looking for a church, I visited one well spoken of locally. The Family type Service was just fine; over coffee afterwards, the first thing I was asked, quite intensely, was ‘Where do you stand on the gay issue? They’re very hot about that here.’ Which is what I think this thread is suggesting should be done. My response was to look for a different church as sooner or later I could see we would fall out – I’ve since learned that the vicar concerned is equally rabidly anti women’s ordination and classes both issues as… Read more »
Do you have any view on what proportion of CofE congregations have a position on this that they could publish? Of the churches I am engaged with I suspect that not a single one could say what the position was as they haven’t done any sort of exercise to establish it, although I could have a stab at the vicar’s own opinion.
It is my experience also, Edward, that within parish congregations there are people who hold diverse views. However, if the preacher/priest is going to stand up and condemn my intimate and devoted relationship, I want to know that. I would not attend a church with my wife if I thought the preacher was going to condemn the intimacy of our sweet, precious, devoted relationship. My wife is a very large, butch, and highly intelligent woman, and if such a sermon occurred she would not only be hurt but would probably become… disruptive. If a priest leads the local church, condemning… Read more »
Thank you for your reply – I agree with you entirely and would be made very unhappy and uncomfortable if such a sermon were preached in my presence – I was more trying to work out in my own mind the practicalities of transparency.
If your wife becomes disruptive what is wrong with that? She has every right to oppose the priest. She should not feel pushed out by tinpot parish pontiffs who think their personal opinions are the voice of God.
Dare to be a Daniel
Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm
And dare to make it known
Many giants great and tall
Stalking through the land
Headlong to the Earth would fall
If met by Daniel’s band
And, on Merseyside at least, there is another verse which these days applies more widely.
I think it only fair to ask what reaction one might expect to the mirror-image situation. That is, suppose Susannah was preaching on her experience — or anyone else for that matter — and a member of the congregation took exception to a sermon advocating behaviour that he took to be putting listeners at risk of eternal separation from God. Would it be considered acceptable for him to become “disruptive”?
A far better statement could be adopted nationally.
“As a matter of law, eligibility for marriage is determined by the Government. Traditional teaching is that a marriage is a lifelong, loving union between one man and one woman but, as the established church of England, the Church of England defers to the Government in this matter and recognises and blesses all legal marriages.”
Surely if people ‘sign up, get involved, give money, commit’ they would take the time to find out? I’d rather head up our comms with something about Jesus. I’m not even sure our society knows its position on sexuality and gender transition.
David, you are right that somebody joining a church should want to find out what that particular community’s beliefs and teaching are. But the problem is that often the policy of the church is hidden. The incumbent or PCC may take a decision limiting the participation of women, for example, but the decision is not widely promulgated, even within the congregation of that church. https://womenandthechurch.org/features/church-of-england-newspaper-article-october-2019-trust-and-transparency-essentials-for-mutual-flourishing/ https://womenandthechurch.org/resources/a-short-guide-to-resolutions-letters-of-request-bishops-and-parishes/ Similarly many Evangelical churches have policies and teachings based on a belief that LGBTQ activities are against Gospel values, but because these issues are embarrassing and controversial, such issues are rarely discussed in sermons… Read more »
If a church PCC has gone through the process of passing a resolution asking to only have male priests and bishops, I think it entirely reasonable that it makes that resolution public, so the congregation and potential new members are aware of that fact. The same applies for LGBTQ issues after LLF. Personally I strongly disagree with the “two integrities” policies, whether related to gender or sexuality. But if the C of E in its wisdom decides that each individual church can choose what to believe and teach about gender and sexuality, then surely it is reasonable to ask a… Read more »
It would be a good start if a parish could state blatantly when its PCC has passed the resolutions to not accept female clergy.
In my experience this has not always been apparent.
This is an interesting question. In some sense with regards women’s ordination this is already the case, as the PCC must submit a request for alternative oversight if they wish to opt out from female leadership. In the case of same sex marriage being permitted but with conscience clauses, PCCs would need to resolve whether or not they would be allowed in any given church. It would be unfortunate if a same sex couple came forward requesting marriage and no previous thoughts had been had concerning whether they would be welcomed to have their ceremony.
Rod Gillis
2 years ago
Thanks for the Steven Shakespeare article. Lovely read. Having done so, I thought of John Macquarrie. My favorite work of this Anglican Heidegger and Bultmann scholar is his award winning, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought. But Macquarrie also authored a very interesting book titled, Mary for All Christians (1990). It includes a very interesting chapter, Mary and Modernity which begins with a consideration of Our Lady of Guadalupe. What’s more the book concludes with a complete Mary Liturgy, An Ecumenical Office of Mary the Mother of Jesus. Another of his books, Paths in Spirituality is a real gem. One of… Read more »
Singing Ye who own the faith of Jesus with its repeated Hail Marys at this morning’s mass reminded me of the time when we would sing this almost as an act of defiance or to annoy the Evangelicals. Since which time the Catholic tradition has had to learn to walk a little more humbly in the ecclesial world. Nonetheless, I still feel that a faith that has no room for Our Lady is likely to be deficient in art and humanity – and ultimately in reality too.
I grew up with the ‘Hail Mary’. Like every kid in Catholic parochial school I knew it by heart. Now for The Angelus, I use my own adaptation of the Ave given here in italics: “(Alleluia). Rejoice with gladness daughter of divine favour. The Lord is with You. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is Jesus child of your womb. (Alleluia). Mary sanctified, bearer of God, inspire us that we may be filled with new life.”
Steven Shakespeare encapsulates what is at the heart of the mystery of The Incarnation of Christ in the womb of Mary, ‘Mother of the Church’ : – “When Mary hears the word, she wonders, embraces, embodies, prophesies and sings that joyful encounter. At the same time, she questions, fears and senses the suffering that is to come. She remains a marginalised woman on the edge of an empire which cares nothing for her. It is a wholly embodied, holistically incarnate, realistic faith. Mary’s part in that is unique; but through her prayer and path, we are invited to share it… Read more »
Naomi makes good points. I believe it should be mandatory that churches truthfully state their positions on sexuality, gender transition, and recognition of women priests and bishops. After all, why should people be afraid of the truth?
Church statements should head up their comms – websites, Facebook pages, newsletters. A simple paragraph would do, visible and close to the top. It seems wrong to let people sign up, get involved, give money, commit… only to discover down the line that the church holds positions contrary to their own convictions and beliefs.
Ship of Fools: The Magazine of Christian Unrest has a section called Mystery Worshipper. There they regularly publish knowledgeable visitors’ reports of their worship experience at an identified congregation. I remember they once did a section on clues to the bias of individual congregations. These were about the unintended messages a congregation sends through its signage and printed materials.
It’s sad to think that once we just worried about denominational biases. Now we have worry about the unspoken bias of each individual congregation.
Define the word *Church* in light of Christ’s prayer for unity: “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21).
You are recommending a network of local divided churches that are not “one” as Christ prayed. This is a “Church of pluralism”, separated according to individual understandings of the revelation of God and personal preferences/predispositions.
Some of us live in the real world, Peter. I was going to say the church has not been “one” since the Great Schism…but on reflection, I think it has never been one. Certainly, Paul’s letters to the various gatherings in the major cities of the First Century make it clear that each had its own “understanding”.
“Some of us live in the real world, Peter. I was going to say the church has not been ‘one’ since the Great Schism…but on reflection, I think it has never been one. ” Amen to that. I don’t think the Church has been one since at least the days of St. Paul, who I would argue is the real founder of Christianity, as St. Paul took the Church in a radically different direction than the reformed messianic Judaism some of the apostles may have been pursuing. The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine to bring different viewpoints together… Read more »
Peter Do you mean that the ‘unity’Jesus expects (or even commands) means every church thinking, believing and behaving the same way? When has the Christian church on earth not been pluralist?
On the basic propositions of the Christian faith and morality, most certainly.
I’m using theological pluralism in the sense of permitting diverse and contradictory beliefs co-existing in one church by aggregating local preferences, yet still regarding itself to be in overall “communion”.
Thank you.
“Diversity within unity” I think is a model that many denominations should pursue.
In the end, it just shows that religion, like politics, is simply a matter of personal choice and opinion. Nothing is more “true” than anything else.
Yes, it is a church of pluralism but then our Holy Scripture is pluralistic and specifically says that different conduct is required of different people according to both their level of understanding (food in Acts and one of the Epistles) and, even if understanding is the same, according to how hard or easy it is for an individual to comply (marriage in the Gospels). There is even a difference in relation to things which some think are essential to salvation: circumcision isn’t a great debate today but for the generation after Jesus those who followed the teaching of St James… Read more »
Can you give any examples of such ‘pluralism’ in the Church’s 2000 year history on questions of faith and morals. Examples where local churches have been free to teach opposite and opposing propositions yet still consider themselves to be one “communion”? What happens is agreement or schism and division in such situations.
As for your last statement, where or when has it ever been supported that individual exegetes and believers can regard themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what Scripture means through exercising private judgement?
You have just made the change from the Bible being the arbiter of behaviour to churches having ultimate authority. I can’t buy into that. The Bible is pluralistic. If churches aren’t, that’s a deficiency to be corrected not something to take as a foundation.
“…where or when has it ever been supported that individual exegetes and believers can regard themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what Scripture means through exercising private judgement?”
Are you suggesting that individual conscience is wrong?
“Conscience” isn’t a set of emotions or feelings; it’s a judgment of reasoning. Henry Newman described it conscience as “a law of the mind.”, i.e., forming proper judgments about the morality/immortality) of actions.
Individual conscience needs to be properly formed.
Peter What is the difference between having a ‘properly formed’ individual conscience (without being quite clear the measure of that) and being an ‘individual exegete’ who regards themselves as the ultimate arbiter on an issue?
In both conscience and exegesis we can be subjectively in error about something that is objectively true.
Then what is “objectively true” in any discussion of the morality of same-sex marriage?
This comes perilously close to “if your conscientious judgment does not agree with mine, then your conscience is not properly formed.”
Rather, it asserts there is a Divine lawgiver who stands above fallen individual judgement and who has made these laws known through Scripture, His Church and reason.
Aha! There’s the rub–“reason”. If I have reasoned that Scripture is to be interpreted one way and you have reasoned it should be interpreted a different way, who is to say which of us is correct?
And don’t answer “the Church.” The Church is a human institution and is just as fallible as any individual human is.
I’m a bit puzzled by your penultimate paragraph – by ‘lf some people…….. decline to marry someone of the same sex’ do you mean a clergyman asked to perform a ceremony? That I can understand. I’m thinking as a layman; my genetic makeup would decline, never mind my faith’s revelation.
Parish churches cannot truthfully state their positions on such matters because, in truth, they have no positions to state. If the leaders were to state a position it would not be the position of the church. Vicars are not popes, indeed I doubt the Bishop of Rome any longer regards himself as a pope in the sense long opposed by the Protestant peoples of the world. Are you suggesting people should not be allowed to get involved in a church unless they agree with the pontifications of its leaders? If people find, down the line, that the church, by which… Read more »
A few years back, while looking for a church, I visited one well spoken of locally. The Family type Service was just fine; over coffee afterwards, the first thing I was asked, quite intensely, was ‘Where do you stand on the gay issue? They’re very hot about that here.’ Which is what I think this thread is suggesting should be done. My response was to look for a different church as sooner or later I could see we would fall out – I’ve since learned that the vicar concerned is equally rabidly anti women’s ordination and classes both issues as… Read more »
Do you have any view on what proportion of CofE congregations have a position on this that they could publish? Of the churches I am engaged with I suspect that not a single one could say what the position was as they haven’t done any sort of exercise to establish it, although I could have a stab at the vicar’s own opinion.
It is my experience also, Edward, that within parish congregations there are people who hold diverse views. However, if the preacher/priest is going to stand up and condemn my intimate and devoted relationship, I want to know that. I would not attend a church with my wife if I thought the preacher was going to condemn the intimacy of our sweet, precious, devoted relationship. My wife is a very large, butch, and highly intelligent woman, and if such a sermon occurred she would not only be hurt but would probably become… disruptive. If a priest leads the local church, condemning… Read more »
Thank you for your reply – I agree with you entirely and would be made very unhappy and uncomfortable if such a sermon were preached in my presence – I was more trying to work out in my own mind the practicalities of transparency.
If your wife becomes disruptive what is wrong with that? She has every right to oppose the priest. She should not feel pushed out by tinpot parish pontiffs who think their personal opinions are the voice of God.
Dare to be a Daniel
Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm
And dare to make it known
Many giants great and tall
Stalking through the land
Headlong to the Earth would fall
If met by Daniel’s band
And, on Merseyside at least, there is another verse which these days applies more widely.
I think it only fair to ask what reaction one might expect to the mirror-image situation. That is, suppose Susannah was preaching on her experience — or anyone else for that matter — and a member of the congregation took exception to a sermon advocating behaviour that he took to be putting listeners at risk of eternal separation from God. Would it be considered acceptable for him to become “disruptive”?
A far better statement could be adopted nationally.
“As a matter of law, eligibility for marriage is determined by the Government. Traditional teaching is that a marriage is a lifelong, loving union between one man and one woman but, as the established church of England, the Church of England defers to the Government in this matter and recognises and blesses all legal marriages.”
It seems only fair to ask whether you were content that the Church should “defer to the Government” on this matter in, say, 2012?
Must individuals declare that their personal position differs from that of the church to which they belong?
Surely if people ‘sign up, get involved, give money, commit’ they would take the time to find out? I’d rather head up our comms with something about Jesus. I’m not even sure our society knows its position on sexuality and gender transition.
David, you are right that somebody joining a church should want to find out what that particular community’s beliefs and teaching are. But the problem is that often the policy of the church is hidden. The incumbent or PCC may take a decision limiting the participation of women, for example, but the decision is not widely promulgated, even within the congregation of that church. https://womenandthechurch.org/features/church-of-england-newspaper-article-october-2019-trust-and-transparency-essentials-for-mutual-flourishing/ https://womenandthechurch.org/resources/a-short-guide-to-resolutions-letters-of-request-bishops-and-parishes/ Similarly many Evangelical churches have policies and teachings based on a belief that LGBTQ activities are against Gospel values, but because these issues are embarrassing and controversial, such issues are rarely discussed in sermons… Read more »
Mandatory? So you would force every parish church to go through a process of defining its position on these things?
If a church PCC has gone through the process of passing a resolution asking to only have male priests and bishops, I think it entirely reasonable that it makes that resolution public, so the congregation and potential new members are aware of that fact. The same applies for LGBTQ issues after LLF. Personally I strongly disagree with the “two integrities” policies, whether related to gender or sexuality. But if the C of E in its wisdom decides that each individual church can choose what to believe and teach about gender and sexuality, then surely it is reasonable to ask a… Read more »
It would be a good start if a parish could state blatantly when its PCC has passed the resolutions to not accept female clergy.
In my experience this has not always been apparent.
This is an interesting question. In some sense with regards women’s ordination this is already the case, as the PCC must submit a request for alternative oversight if they wish to opt out from female leadership. In the case of same sex marriage being permitted but with conscience clauses, PCCs would need to resolve whether or not they would be allowed in any given church. It would be unfortunate if a same sex couple came forward requesting marriage and no previous thoughts had been had concerning whether they would be welcomed to have their ceremony.
Thanks for the Steven Shakespeare article. Lovely read. Having done so, I thought of John Macquarrie. My favorite work of this Anglican Heidegger and Bultmann scholar is his award winning, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought. But Macquarrie also authored a very interesting book titled, Mary for All Christians (1990). It includes a very interesting chapter, Mary and Modernity which begins with a consideration of Our Lady of Guadalupe. What’s more the book concludes with a complete Mary Liturgy, An Ecumenical Office of Mary the Mother of Jesus. Another of his books, Paths in Spirituality is a real gem. One of… Read more »
Singing Ye who own the faith of Jesus with its repeated Hail Marys at this morning’s mass reminded me of the time when we would sing this almost as an act of defiance or to annoy the Evangelicals. Since which time the Catholic tradition has had to learn to walk a little more humbly in the ecclesial world. Nonetheless, I still feel that a faith that has no room for Our Lady is likely to be deficient in art and humanity – and ultimately in reality too.
I grew up with the ‘Hail Mary’. Like every kid in Catholic parochial school I knew it by heart. Now for The Angelus, I use my own adaptation of the Ave given here in italics: “(Alleluia). Rejoice with gladness daughter of divine favour. The Lord is with You. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is Jesus child of your womb. (Alleluia). Mary sanctified, bearer of God, inspire us that we may be filled with new life.”
Steven Shakespeare encapsulates what is at the heart of the mystery of The Incarnation of Christ in the womb of Mary, ‘Mother of the Church’ : – “When Mary hears the word, she wonders, embraces, embodies, prophesies and sings that joyful encounter. At the same time, she questions, fears and senses the suffering that is to come. She remains a marginalised woman on the edge of an empire which cares nothing for her. It is a wholly embodied, holistically incarnate, realistic faith. Mary’s part in that is unique; but through her prayer and path, we are invited to share it… Read more »