Updated Monday evening
Several organisational responses in support of the statement from the bishops have already been published:
There are also several responses expressing opposition to the statement
Some of these items were issued before the release of the full LFF response on Friday. I will update them if newer statements appear, and I will update this post with additional items as I discover them.
Please explain how Archbishop Welby is “unreservedly and joyfully”.in welcoming Lesbian and Gay couples into the Church of England when he refuses to bless their union ? That seems like a pretty reserved welcome to me.
If Archbishop Welby wants to welcome Lesbian and Gay couples, why did he refuse to invite the partners of Lesbian and Gay Bishops to the Lambeth Conference?
The situation is very clear to me. Whatever Welby thinks personally his fear of offending homophobes takes priority over any kind of joyful and unreserved welcome.
Isn’t the point of Christianity that love triumphs over hate ?
I think he said that he was welcoming people, not couples:
If you don’t welcome my wife, then you aren’t welcoming me, my sacramental marriage, and the people God made us to be.
That is your decision. But I urge you to consider most carefully whom you are addressing with that “you”. On the last day, are you going to say that to your Maker? If so, that’s your choice, and indeed the choice each of us will one day have to face, and one we need to prepare for all our lives. Choose wisely.
I wonder why you thought it appropriate to put that question to Cynthia just now, and in that way?
Cynthia was replying to a comment I made, and used the word “you”. Given that she made a firm declaration of her position on a topic of general interest on this public discussion board, I took “you” to be referring not to me personally, even though she was replying to me, but that by “you” she was referring to people in general: making that declaration one of universal applicability, and clearly of very great importance to her. It is appropriate to ask whether she chooses to make that declaration the most important thing in her life. It is my view… Read more »
My “you” was definitely “the church.” I just don’t believe for a second that you, personally, or these conservative bishops, can speak for God. I really don’t. My reading of Scripture is that Jesus’ most harsh words are towards power, like the Pharisees, for degrading others and I see the conservatives in the exact role as the Pharisees. Jesus’ most clear words tell us to love all our neighbors, to refrain from judgment as that is reserved for God alone, and the Beatitudes don’t leave room for anyone to oppress anyone else. I have been in relationship with the Living… Read more »
I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself.
There was nothing in what Cynthia said to suggest she puts her relationship with her wife above her relationship with Christ or God. That was your own assumption, and it doesn’t do you credit.
What was clear, in what she said, is her pain and anger at the way the C of E treats her, her wife, and other LGBT people. Many others, including survivors of church abuse and victims of Church misogyny, feel similar pain and anger. As you rightly say, the C of E is not God.
Really? That’s your response: “If you don’t mind your ways, God will throw you in Hell”? Don’t you think we GLBT people are tired of conservatives threatening us with God’s wrath? Sometimes I think conservatives delight in doing so. It strengthens their pious smugness. God is Love. I’m sorry if that sounds trite and mawkish, but that’s what I believe. God is not only all-powerful, but the prophets and sages of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) say over and over again that God is not only all-powerful and all-just but all-merciful. According to a passage in… Read more »
I said nothing of the kind, of course, and putting quotation marks around it is, to put it politely, a diversion.
What I said was that each of us has to choose whether our relationship with God is more important than anything else. That applies to all human relationships, of course, and it is a challenge to every single one of us.
I said nothing that can be remotely interpreted as the caricature of somebody else’s position you argue against.
Please would commenters be careful to avoid any remarks that could be construed as a personal attack on others here. Thank you.
Thank you for the reminder. I’ll amend my comment to: ‘If you are making that assumption, it doesn’t do you credit.’
Noted and thank you.
Generally, when people talk to other people about meeting God on the Last Day, they are not inferring that God is going to greet them with glee and point them to the Up escalator instead of the Down escalator.
That explains the misunderstanding.
Again, I believe that LGBTQ+ Anglican couples’ marriages are blessed by God and NOT being held up higher than God. I get that it completely undermines the conservative position to truly engage with the liberal position: God loves us and our relationships just as much as straight people and we believe this BECAUSE of Jesus not in opposition. I would go on to say that the conservative’s stubborn insistence on their entitlement to oppress others, resembles the Pharisees. Jesus had a lot to say about that.
I don’t care to make a general pronouncement about the facts of the people’s priorities, but do feel it worth warning that some people are in danger of taking as their primary source of identity something other than their identity as a Christian. Since you as an individual assure us that you are aware of that danger, then of course I don’r presume to counsel you as an individual further. But what both sides need to “get” is that there is a disagreement here, and it is, I fear, apparent that neither side is in the habit of engaging adequately… Read more »
Hard to tell at this stage who is more furious. Gatiss of Church Society (the most deeply conservative part of the evangelical tribe, and with its thinly disguised homophobia) suggests: “The main question ought to be: does this please God, or not? But God seems to have been sidelined in the Church of England, in favour of a political balancing act which aims simply to keep the show on the road long enough for Justin Welby to still be allowed to do the Coronation as leader of the established church.” If it wasn’t so serious, you’d be forgiven for not… Read more »
A comment on Anthony’s suggestion that Parliament might remove the quadruple lock. I was a senior civil servant (but not in a “policy” role) in the relevant Government department at the time the legislation was introduced. As I recall, originally the Bill had no provision for religious same-sex marriage at all, but it was to be civil marriage only. However, lobbying by non-Anglican religious bodies (Quakers, Unitarians and non-Orthodox Judaism, I seem to remember) led to a redraft to make it possible for religious organisations also to solemnize same-sex marriages. The relevant provisions, and their rationale, are clearly set out… Read more »
Thank you for that very helpful comment, which confirms my longstanding interpretation of the law, that, if/when we have a consensus in Synod, the Church of England could pass the necessary Measure to amend the Same-Sex Marriage Act and the Prayer Book, and Parliament would very likely agree. One qualification – Amending Canons do not actually come before Parliament, but there is prior consultation (as you may even have done) to ensure that there are no obstacles to the necessary Royal Licence being obtained. The more difficult question is what Parliament would do if the Church wanted to make same-sex… Read more »
“if/when we have a consensus in Synod…” Do you mean 67% in favour of gay marriage, Neil? Isn’t the core problem that there IS no consensus, and people with contrary views hold their beliefs in strong conscience? It may be 2050 or 2100 before consensus is reached, if ever. Who knows? The doctrine change is kicked into the long grass further down the road, indefinitely into the future. Meanwhile the ‘conservative’ view on the core issue (ban of gay marriage in church) is imposed on everyone else’s consciences. And that’s discrimination and oppression of conscience. It’s unacceptable. Consensus is not… Read more »
Devastating and incisive critique Susannah, one I agree with 100%.
As I’ve said on other platforms, allowing all to follow their consciences (while maintaining altar and pulpit fellowship) appears the only way forward that doesn’t lead to protracted misery and exclusion for a lot of good people.
I’ve suggested non-geographic provinces drawn on theological lines, but there’s many models. Important thing’s to agree the principle before this tears the church apart.
From my perspective, the Bishops’ actions in asking God to look favorably on a same-sex couple, and nothing more, while at the same time apologizing for discrimination against GLBT people amounts to:
“We have been wrong to discriminate against GLBT people — and we intend to continue to do so.”
As a policy to make the liberals (first half) and the conservatives (second half) content, it fails miserably.
Peter Gross I agree. There are few things more wounding than a minister who offers “sincere and heartfelt apologies” but then does nothing at all to change his behaviour. Anthony Archer: You have raised an important point. Britain has a ceremonial (non political) Head of State. King Charles has expressed a wish for the crown to represent the entire nation. I think that an Archbishop who has publicly stated that Gay sex is sinful and who refuses to personally bless the loving union of Lesbian and Gay Christians is unsuitable to play such a central role in the coronation of… Read more »
I have read today, from BBC news pages, that the Coronation service is to be shorter and with a far wider representation of faiths and cultures, but it will still be in the context of a Christian service of the Church of England. The BBC article includes a suggestion that the Coronation Oaths should be changed, so just a reminder that this would require legislation to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The Coronation is now not much more than three months away. In short, I don’t think such legislation, or your suggestion, will happen, but as always from… Read more »
The Coronation risks playing very badly in Scotland if it appears to be an English-centric event. That’s going to play against the backdrop of an irritating s35 order. A Church of England which isn’t inclusive risks being an embarrassment for the King. The personal position of the Archbishop of Canterbury only makes that worse.
I’m sure Scotland will be fully represented and will participate along with all the countries of the UK. The ‘Stone of Destiny’ (also known as the ‘Stone of Scone’) has been brought from Scotland to play some role in the Coronation ceremony, and will no doubt return to Scotland afterwards. Older people like myself will remember the late Queen being crowned over the Stone of Scone in 1953.
I agree that the SNP will continue to do their best to drive wedges between England and Scotland, and the Coronation will not be exempt from that. I don’t know what the King’s views are on the Church of England’s current doctrine of marriage, but it would be equally interesting to hear what the Church’s views are on his marital status.
Whatever the Church’s view is, it won’t be expressed at the Coronation.
Arrangements will be worked out beforehand, or the ABs and the HoB will harrumph afterwards.
This will be a PR event, meant to show off His Majesty, the House of Windsor, and the UK to the world.
Shortly (weeks?) after her Coronation our dear late Queen went to the High Kirk of Edinburgh (aka St Giles Cathedral) to receive the honours of Scotland. I assume His Majesty will do the same. So Scotland’s attitude to involvement in the Coronation itself will be, as ever, only partly participative. Desiring both to be a part of the UK, but wanting also to be treated as a distinct and different country, without necessarily being a separate one (though that could happen).
Mention has been made of Scotland being ‘fully represented’. However, the 1953 rite was almost uniformly Anglican, the sole contribution of the then moderator (James Pitt-Watson) being during part V, the presentation of the Bible where, following Fisher’s incantation of a prayer of 43 words, the moderator was permitted to intone a prayer of a mere 15 words. This was the Church of Scotland’s sole contribution to a ceremony whose order of service was some 60 pages’ long, and even to that risible concession the Church of England yielded grudgingly and under pressure from the Dundonian dean, Alan Don (Edward… Read more »
Certainly it would be worth trying. Count me in if there is some irritation to be caused.
No, it would be embarrassing and discourteous both to Stephen Cottrell and the King.
I don’t think it is a matter of courtesy. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s role is now explicitly in hock to the Anglican Communion, given the new composition of the CNC for his/her appointment, with the blocking third (or nearly so) from AC representatives. But the ABY can be seen as genuinely representing the Church of England, which is important constitutionally. The expressed divergence of views on the current topic of interest is symptomatic of the institutionalised split loyalties of the ABC. It’s for this constitutional reason that David Hawkins’s proposal should be supported—not because of the current ABC’s and ABY’s… Read more »
One could argue that it is by being embarrassing and discourteous, or even worse , that one gets things changed. Think Rosa Parks, or the suffragettes, or even Nelson Mandela. Being nice rarely changes things. Institutions only respond against their own interests when they are forced to.
Since the ‘Crown’ is Sovereign in Parliament, and it is Parliament which has decided that marriage be open to same-sex couples, surely it is to be expected that the Bishop placing the Crown on the head of the Monarch is one who will accept the will of parliament? As the ABC has expressly recused himself from abiding by the will of his own Bench of Bishops on the grounds that this would upset Anglican Christians in other countries, then he ought to recuse himslef from the tradition of being the one to place the Crown on the head of the… Read more »
ABY: Primate of England.
Apologies. You are correct. Primate of England and Metropolitan.
But as I noted elsewhere, the ABY has no claim to perform the coronation. It has always been performed by Canterbury where he (historically always “he”) is able to. London deputised in 1689 as senior suffragan of Canterbury. (Elizabeth I was crowned by Oglethorpe of Carlisle because no other bishop was willing to do so.)
“It has always been performed by Canterbury” (except when it wasn’t). So what? It’s a custom, not the eleventh commandment. Change it. And ++York as Primate of England and Metropolitan certainly seems to me to have a claim.
Father, I am deeply perturbed by your blatant disregard for the stenotic traditions of mother church. Perhaps the rohypnol injection at your ordination did not take. I shall pray for you – that usually does the trick.
From what I understand across the Pond, these days, the monarch is no Henry VIII, able to do as he pleases. The days when the monarch made a declaration, and every high official chanted “By your command!” in unison are long gone. I’ve studied a wee bit of English/British history, and my take is: Since roughly the 1600s with King Charles I losing his head over a dispute with Parliament, King Charles II being asked to leave by Parliament (which he did, very reluctantly) and King William and Queen Mary being invited (power assumption) to rule, the 1700s with King… Read more »
pp-PG, this seems spot on to me. Thank you. My only reservation concerns the penultimate sentence. From my chats with guys aged between 20 and 50 at the gym (they call me “mate” – new to me and most gratifying) I would say many of the King’s subjects don’t care. It’s an expensive jamboree for yahoos and old people wearing chains and swords and dead stoats. Perhaps the stoat meat could be used to feed the poor instead of their being encouraged, Jonathan Swift style, to eat their children: “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my… Read more »
This thread, really on a quite different subject, has rather been hijacked by suggestions about the form of the Coronation service. According to a document on Westminster Abbey’s website, preparation for the service starts three months ahead of the Coronation, so round about now, and is prepared by the Archbishop of Canterbury who, the Abbey unequivocally states, will crown the King. The Coronation takes the form of a series of ceremonies with both spiritual and symbolic significance within the overall context of a service of the Eucharist. We don’t know what will be different this time, so speculation is rather… Read more »
I think my point has been misunderstood. The Coronation is supposed to bring the whole nation together and that includes Lesbian and Gay people. Archbishop Welby says one thing and does something completely different. He gives an (in) sincere apology to Lesbian and Gay people and then refuses to bless Lesbian and Gay couples in church and he snubs the partners of gay bishops by not inviting them to the Lambeth Conference. He has stated that he thinks Gay sex is sinful. At best he condones the disgusting homophobia of the Anglican Church in places like Uganda and at worst… Read more »
I haven’t misunderstood your point at all. I just think it is wholly inappropriate to the occasion and potentially a serious embarrassment to Stephen Cottrell who will be involved in his own role in any event.
The Archbishop of York does not really have a role at the Coronation, not historically anyway. Canterbury presides, assisted by the Dean of Westminster. Durham and Bath & Wells support the king, and two other bishops the queen. Otherwise he just tags along with others. (The only exception was the coronation of Queen Alexandra in 1902 which was performed by York because of the great age and infirmity of Canterbury.)
‘Two other bishops support the Queen’ In 1937, the last time there was a Queen consort to be crowned, it was Blackburn and St.Albans. Curious choices, unless it was the most-senior-by-appointment from each province. Wonder if they will be making a claim this time round?!
But, without researching the possible reason which you have suggested, paradoxically, they are two of the youngest bishoprics by their recent creation: Blackburn 1926 and St Albans 1877.
No one but the Archbishop of Canterbury has the right to crown the monarch. That has been the practice for over a thousand years. Only when there is no Archbishop of Canterbury able to act has another bishop taken their place, and then not the Archbishop of York. The Bishop of London, as the senior suffragan see of Canterbury would likely be next in line — as happened in 1689. (And I use the word “suffragan” in an older sense than is currently common.)
It would indeed be nice if it did so, but that is not its purpose.
Besides which, organising protests at the coronation would be stupid in terms of emotional intelligence, and winning hearts and minds. ABC is obviously going to crown the King, and nothing will change that. It would be wise for all parties to make sure that the faith leaders of Scotland etc are fully involved, given the constitutional stresses at present, and by faith I don’t just mean Christian.
I’m sure we can expect to see that. The King made the Oath relating to the Security of the Church of Scotland back in September. I mentioned above the presence of the Stone of Scone. It is already announced that other denominations and other faiths will be represented. If people would only patiently wait, all will be revealed nearer the time.
I don’t think that it’s ‘organising a protest’ – rather that the ABC should recuse himself from the coronation in the same way that he has recused himself from using the prayers and liturgies he and the Bishops are promoting.
Fr. Andrew is correct. I suggested a letter writing campaign to the King pointing out that Welby is a divisive figure because he is openly homophobic. I never suggested a protest at the Coronation. I don’t of course imagine the King Charles is going to sack the Archbishop of Canterbury from the Coronation because David Hawkins asks him to but I think if enough people wrote it would cause embarrassment and there are also voices in the House of Commons raising concern about the homophobia of our national church. But to work, quite a lot of people would need to… Read more »
Susannah: Having just looked at the Order of Service for the 1953 Coronation, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland presented the Bible to the Queen. That was at a very early stage of the ceremony, immediately following the Sovereign’s Oath, and, in fact, before presentation of any of the regalia.
Yes, this was an innovation in 1953. The Presentation of the Bible was introduced for William III and Mary II in 1689, and took place immediately after the Crowning. The book was brought by the Dean and presented by the Archbishop. 1953 moved this bit of ceremony to be after the Oath (sworn on the same Bible, I presume, though this is not explicit in the rubrics), with the presentation by the Moderator. As the other established Church in the UK, the CoS has some status. Additionally, very soon after the 1953 Coronation, the Queen went to Edinburgh and was… Read more »
I wonder whether a separate coronation related thread might be better, but I think I remember that the Archbishop of York sometimes crowns a Queen Consort (https://www.rct.uk/collection/404488/the-coronation-of-king-edward-vii-the-crowning-of-queen-alexandra shows this happening in 1901).
Most of the statutory text of the Oath is not sworn on a Bible, but for the final two sentences (
“The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.”) are sworn kneeling at the altar with the right hand on the gospel.
I’m sure a separate thread would be better, yes! In 1902 Archbishop Maclagan indeed crowned Queen Alexandra. This was because of the extreme old age and informity of Archbishop Temple. And indeed it shoes that these days Canterbury is more likely to let York deputise when necessary.
Thank you for that update, Rowland. I was about 20 days old on the 1953 coronation day and my parents watched it on the television, but I was presumably a babe in arms not old enough to recall the finer details!
This thread has probably run its course, but it has pointed up what all commentators and others are seeing, namely that the Archbishop of Canterbury is in a completely different place (ballpark even) from the Archbishop of York. Nor has it been lost on very many that ++Ebor both performed exceptionally well at the Platinum Jubilee Service at St Pauls on 3 June, and has shown distinctive pastoral sensitivity in recent days. But it seems clear that ++Cantuar will of course crown King Charles III (inking in the reality, and having a party). Of interest to CNC watchers and others… Read more »