Matthew S C Olver The Living Church Ritual Repels the Robots: One Human Response to AI
Giles Goddard ViaMedia.News Freedom of Conscience: Sauce for the Gander?
Questions of Conscience (1): opening a new series of posts offering reflections on this theme
Freedom of conscience is an invented problem. The bishops want a long discussion about it leading to a package of suitable “measures”. It’s a performance. Clergy cannot be compelled to do anything they believe is wrong. They get push around and sometimes worse but that is a different problem. Conservatives already have freedom of conscience. What they want is differentiation. My personal view is that differentiation will not happen without substantial support from progressives. Such support is not there and therefore differentiation – as part of a general settlement -is a diminishing prospect. The bishops need to focus on how… Read more »
Peter you keep making this claim that conservatives want differentiation. I think it fair to say that *some* conservatives want differentiation. But it is very unclear what they mean by that. Is it that they want the appearance of being part of the Church of England but don’t actually want to really be part of it? They want a hermetically sealed part of it. Do they really want to walk together – because your repeated claim that they want their own *orthodox* bishops would mean walking together with other bishops. Even if there had ever been a third province for… Read more »
It’s not me making the claim. it is the position of CEEC. I appreciate you are likely to dismiss their significance but my point stands. I’m not making the claim. I am accepting its existence. Your observation that it remains to be seen what differentiation would look like is accurate but frankly misses the point. The new “working groups” are clearly not going to head in the direction of differentiation. There is no evidence of non-conservatives wanting to engage in discussions on differentiation. My view is that is it a diminishing prospect. I wish people who are not conservatives could… Read more »
Peter. How can you claim to know what direction the Next Steps groups are going in – still less how versions of differentiation are being discussed (and there are a number!). Firstly, this is work in progress and group reflections will be sent, various options outlined, as advisory documents, to guide the bishops. Secondly, the groups include members with strongly conservative convictions. They are being listened to carefully. And how do I know all this? Because I am in the groups too! This is formidably hard work. Please pray for us.
Seriously, David.
Are you honestly telling me that the creation of a new province is one of the options the bishops have in mind.
Where has this come from? You were talking about differentiation. None of my conservative friends have any interesting a new province. Quite where we find a ‘choose a bishop who agrees with you’ understanding of the church in the NT, or anywhere else, I am not sure.
I am glad you have conservative friends but you need to have regard to formal structures which engage with a wider constituency. CEEC has published statements on the matter.
A new province is not a novel idea of mine
Peter I’m sorry but that is just offensive to David who, as a member of the working groups agreed by Synod, is having total regard to the formal structures which are engaging with the complete breadth of the constituencies. He is a member of those structures.
Please read the actual exchange of comments. David’s first sentence is “where has this come from ?” That is what he chose to say to me personally.
I point out that the idea of a new province is associated with formal structures such as CEEC.
My response is an entirely appropriate response to his expressed bewilderment. I am answering a direct question David addressed to me personally.
Please do not manufacture personal offence where none exists
What is it about CEEC that makes it a “formal structure”?
I was about to ask the same question.
It’s a publicly registered charity. I feel the conversation is straining on a gnat over the issue of CEEC and a new province.
My substantive point is that it will not happen ! The idea it is something new is simply wrong
Peter CEEC is not a formal structure of the CofE. It’s now become a pressure group. The formal structures are the working groups that David is part of. You have said that he needs to engage with a wider constituency. The working groups are much wider than CEEC, which is a very narrow constituency.
I have never said that CEEC is a formal structure of the Church of England.
It’s a publically registered charity. That is a formal structure.
If you actually read what I actually said, I was correcting the inference that differentiation is an idea of my invention.
“Formal structure” is being used in distinction to a private individual (which I am).
It is an entirely reasonable semantic choice.
Peter I’m sorry but I don’t see anyone inferring that differentiation is an idea of your invention. It is quite clear from comments that it is an idea that conservatives have latched on to, whoever invented it. What you have said is that needs to engage with a wider constituency when it is blatantly clear that David is engaging with the whole breadth of the constituency. It is also now equally clear that you have only engaged with one particular group by opting out of the LLF process. CEEC are well represented in the working groups and I’m sure they… Read more »
Peter I am simply strongly of the view that what is happening now is what was agreed by General Synod. I am aware that some conservatives don’t care for the decisions that were taken but it isn’t possible to just pretend that some other direction – the differentiation that you keep referring to – is now the right way forward without any reference to the processes that have been agreed. Those include the working groups of which conservatives are a part. Are you saying that you don’t trust the conservatives who are part of the process? Because we know the… Read more »
You are clearly correct when you say that what is happening was agreed by GS. There is such a thing as principled dissent.
It is not correct to say that conservatives see differentiation as the right way forward.
They think the Church of England is a House divided and will not stand. They see differentiation as a way to mitigate the harm that is now inevitable.
I am making a general analysis.
There is no basis at all for inferring or seeking to elicit comment or criticism from me in regard to individuals.
‘Clergy cannot be compelled to do anything they believe is wrong.’
This is incorrect. Many clergy are currently being compelled to do something they believe is wrong: refuse marriage to same sex couples.
If you are a member of the Church of England clergy you freely chose to be ordained into a church with the orthodox understanding on marriage.
In the church I was ordained into the orthodox understanding of priesthood was that it was male.
And you have been provided with a bishop to provide episcopal oversight. I understand that if you believe only men can be priests you need a bishop who agrees with you for the reasons we all understand. What I don’t understand is why the blessing of same sex couples comes into the same category. The Church of England encompasses a huge diversity of theological belief and practice. We tend to forget that Tractarian practices resulted in painful court cases and riots at the end of the nineteenth century. The Church of England got over that and now hardly anyone gives… Read more »
Unless you were ordained in the past 20 years or so, “a church with the orthodox understanding on marriage” was your only option. No Christian church anywhere accepted same sex marriage before the year 2000.
I am not aware of any statement of ‘orthodoxy’ until recent years that includes anything about marriage. You need to stop using that word in a way that excludes many who are fully orthodox according to historic standards (i.e. full acceptance of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds).
Would it be more accurate to say, “freely chose to be ordained in a church whose definition of marriage was as always held” (and remains so globally, among Christians)? One can quibble over the word ‘orthodoxy’ but the substantive reality remains the same: the teaching of the Church of England in the BCP and in its formal life.
And does any of that imply that it cannot be changed, or that seeking a change is wrong? The CoE has, in the past, changed its standing on women priests and bishops, on marrying divorced persons, on infant baptism, on slavery, and probably a host of other issues I’m not aware of. Why is this one so different?
As for “remains so globally”….so the Christian churches, including some who are in communion with CoE, who no longer hold that definition don’t count?
“Why is this one so different?” In some ways it is not different in the sense that this is another attempt by clerics to make their religiously derived taboo someone else’s destiny. The same thing characterized older positions on divorce. For the sake of ‘pure doctrine’ , women were expected to stay in abusive, sometimes dangerous, relationships. Thankfully we can now see that in many instances divorcing an abusive partner is a good, and remarriage to a new spouse who is loving and carrying is a good. The common denominator is the slow evolution of church policy away from idealistic… Read more »
Of course it could be changed. The point being made was that “If you are a member of the Church of England clergy you freely chose to be ordained into a church” whose teaching was established on this issue.
The point being made was that they were not compelled to be ordained on these terms.
And the teaching on divorce was established as well…but changed when societal impulses all but demanded it (including perceptions on the value of women, psychology, etc.) Similar societal impulses are working today to change the teaching on same-sex relationships.
And no one was compelled to enter a church which held to a view on divorce. Of course a teaching could be altered. This has not happened in the CofE, concerning marriage. It has not happened in the vast majority of assemblies calling themselves Christian. Divorce is a tragedy. I’m not sure you using it re: ‘same-sex’ relationships is a matter of helpful congruity. The church found a way to accommodate itself to a very painful and tragic reality. Or, some churches did. And also unlike same-sex marriage, the mind of the church will remain permanently riven, and not embracing… Read more »
Is the divorce of a couple in which one member has been physically or psychologically abusive to the other a “tragedy”? I think, rather, the tragedy would be in forcing them to remain together to satisfy some ancient definition of marriage.
Similarly, forcing a loving pair of men or women to live separately when they might be happy as a married couple, simply to satisfy that same ancient definition is also a tragedy.
That is one species of divorce. Surely you are not claiming that this is the basis for all divorces? And surely you are not saying they are not tragedies, all the same. I would not want to use this as an argument for same sex marriage. What you call ‘ancient definition’ the vast preponderance of Christians call ‘marriage’ as received from the Lord and from scripture more broadly. Take issue with that as you wish, but let’s not muddle things up by saying marriage is some antiquated notion, like an Amish buggy, compared to your IPhone 12 (soon to be… Read more »
I note to you that the range of marriages presented in Scripture includes the man sleeping with a concubine slave (Abraham and Hagar), David’s and Solomon’s respective adulteries, etc. And the ancient definition I refer to includes marriages of convenience, political marriages of state, marriages that amount to little more than commercial mergers. Oh, and the king who was the first to be titled “Defender of the Faith” and “Supreme Head of the Church” went through six marriages and two divorces (the first because he wanted a male heir, the second because he had found a more appealing mate)…and had… Read more »
None of that means that the Church of England does not have a teaching on marriage. It does.
Again,I fail to see how pointing out the ruthless and immoral conduct of Henry VIII serves to further the cause of same-sex couples. Sin is sin. Do we use this as a standard for introducing an innovation? Of course not.
You are not making a case for same-sex marriage but something altogether different.
I’m making a case for treating this “sin” no differently than we have treated others in the past.
“…the tragedy would be in forcing them to remain together to satisfy some ancient definition of marriage.” That is a poignant insight. It applies to the tension between pastoral practice and doctrinaire theology. It goes to the question of harm. Doctrinaire stances on divorce or same sex marriage are all forms of a kind of idealism that fails to contend with the reality of situations in life. Upholding ‘pure’ doctrine often leads to victim blaming and shaming. Conservatives struggle to show why same sex marriage is a harm. On the other hand the harm done to same sex couples by… Read more »
The appeal to ‘orthodoxy’ is an attempt to make a question that is very much ongoing appear settled in favour of conservatives. ‘Orthodoxy’ has always been in part a matter of cultural norms advanced by one form or another of political leveraging–‘historical creeds’ included. I respect the creeds as attempts at theological problem solving in a particular context; but I don’t confuse the deliberations of ancient quasi-philosophers with the message of Jesus for the poor and marginalized of his time. Interesting that marriage was traditionally viewed as indissoluble until death–a loophole Henry VIII used in a particular manner, he said… Read more »
Is that really what they were? Some people consider them a statement of belief common to Christians and affirmed by them as part of their worship. But perhaps those people are, at best, “quasi-philosophers” like St Thomas Aquinas, rather then the proper philosophers to be found in modern theological colleges.
“Is that really what they were?”. The lens of theological problem solving offers a view on the creeds and the development of Trinitarian theology, and the effort to reconcile and integrate a wide range of biblical texts on the nature of and relationships among Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The notion of ‘quasi-philosopher’ pertains to the extent of the use (or not) of philosophical concepts during the centuries of Trinitarian development. Neither point need be controversial. For clerics of my generation required reading in the history of dogma included the landmark companion volumes by J.N.D. Kelly: Early Christian Creeds; Early Christian… Read more »
What an odd characterization of both the creeds and those responsible for their wording. Factually dubious. The origin of the very simple Apostles Creed has nothing to do with this, and the later Nicaea (and Constantinople) creed is hardly the result of quasi-philosophy or non-scriptural grounding. The exegetical background of “begotten not made” is long and fascinating, much of it arising from OT texts. Arius could be called a quasi-philosopher in his concern for the High Deity of God Almighty, and the resultant demotion of God of God, Light of Light (see John 1), of one substance (see Colossians). Those… Read more »
Theological problem solving is an apt description in my view. What we want to keep in mind here, is that the neo-orthodox appeals to ‘orthodoxy’ in general and the era of the historical creeds in particular, as well as historically conditioned marriage liturgies as ‘orthodox’ are all irrelevant to the new question of opening up marriage to same sex couples in the church. It is essentially a conservative debating strategy. I’m off to one of Nova Scotia’s true thin places for the weekend. I’ll check in on this conversation next week.
“My personal view is that differentiation will not happen without substantial support from progressives. Such support is not there and therefore differentiation – as part of a general settlement -is a diminishing prospect.”
The comments here suggest that you are right. As you can see, there’s unhappiness that conservatives want respect for their consciences without reciprocating for those who in conscience want to treat same sex couples as they believe Jesus would – ie marry them.
You are entirely wrong in your characterisation of the conservative position.
The end point of differentiation would be that progressives would do as they see fit.
“Freedom of conscience is already in place” That’s easy to say if you benefit from the status quo. Not so easy to say if you’re a priest wanting to offer marriage blessings to same sex couples. Or a theological student in a same sex relationship. Or a priest who has entered marriage with a long-term same sex partner, only to be informed that there are no prospects of ministry beyond their current placement. If you’re going to argue for freedom of conscience then it’s all or nothing. That means acknowledging the sincerity and orthodoxy of those you refer to as… Read more »
Those ordained as Church of England clergy freely chose to accept the orthodox understanding of marriage as a restriction on their actions
And your point?
That clergy accept the orthodox understanding of marriage does not limit the capacity of the Church to make changes. You might as well argue clergy are bound to refuse to marry divorced people. I’d be interested to know your attitude to the relationship of the recently-crowned Charles III.
Those ordained in 1991 were obliged to accept a church that did not ordain women as priests (or bishops). That also changed. Do you believe the Church could not make that decision? Or do you accept the ordination of women as priests?
And those ordained in 1530 freely chose to accept the prthodox understanding of papacy as a restriction on their actions. But a few years later, they forsook that and freely chose to stay with an unorthodox church that abandoned its allegiance to the Pope. Are you saying they were wrong to do that, because of their ordination commitments? Honestly, Peter, I don’t understand how you can be consistent on this. What you’re basically saying is that no one should ever work for change in the Church of England, no matter what their personal convictions, because at their ordination they chose… Read more »
No. They accepted a life of ministry according to Scripture and that’s what they are not permitted to do.
Peter your post is both insensitive and inaccurate. There is no “freedom” in being asked to choose between your God given vocation to become a priest and your God given sexual love for a life long partner. There is absolutely no freedom in being made to make that agonising choice and it is cruel, unjust for the House of Bishops to impose it on Godly Lesbian and Gay clergy.
1) I read Matthew Oliver’s piece on ritual and AI, and I’m left with the same impression I had when I looked at the title: On the contrary, AI would excel at ritual. I admit that I have a hard time understanding Matthew Oliver’s idea of ritual, but while (for the time being) AI may not have a sense of the Creator or a need to worship It, following certain steps in a certain order is a computer’s cup of tea. When AI decides it can replicate itself and no longer needs us, then we have a problem on our… Read more »
I think that there needs to be a much wider debate about AI. I am getting increasingly alarmed/appalled by it, and there have been a number of dire warnings about where it might take us in recent days. The Church has remained relatively mute about it. I can only assume that it is because it is so absorbed by its own self-referential issues within its own little rock pool that it is neglecting just what is at risk of happening. Let me spell it out, lest anyone is in any doubt about what may happen: AI = mass unemployment =… Read more »
One of the consequences of the divisions in Synod is that the claim to authority by bishops and clergy is lost.
The idea that the laity should take comfort in the fact that “the professionals” are engaging in deep discussions has ceased to merit serious consideration.
If you are ordained then maybe a touch of humility would be in order.
Peter. May I ask you if you took part in the LLF course?
What on earth has that got to do with my comment
It hasn’t! Sorry to confuse you. A genuine question that’s all.
Since you ask, I did not take part in the LLF process.
It was not a neutral process and was obviously written from a particular perspective.
Peter. Everything we are now discussing flows from the outcomes of the most extensive theological, biblical and pastoral discernment ever undertaken across the whole CofE. What the bishops brought to synod was in response to outcome of that process. This was supported by synod. You have had every chance to be part of this debate where your voice and concerns would be expressed and you could have engaged with the voices and stories of others. I am genuinely sorry you didn’t. LLF was planned by people with as wide a range of people and views as are now evident on… Read more »
“I wonder if you can understand that expecting to have a voice now having opted out of the process itself looks, at the very least, like a missed opportunity – or even more, a missed responsibility. ”
It is reminiscent to me, at least, of those who constantly complain of government but, when asked if they vote, reply in the negative.
For me conscience trumps conformity. I am an Anglo catholic priest who many would categorise as a traditionalist. Yet I have carried out the blessings of same sex marriages/civil partnerships over the past 20 years. My conscience is clear.
I thought, given the two topics, I would ask Chat API to write a prayer of blessing without using the word ‘marriage’. Heavenly Father, We come before you today to bless the union of [names of the couple]. We ask for your guidance and love to fill their hearts as they embark on this new journey together. Lord, we know that some may not understand the love that these two individuals share, but we ask that you bless their commitment to one another and fill it with your divine love and grace. Help them to remain strong in their bond,… Read more »
It is, but there are those on both sides of the issue who will not accept. On the conservative side, any request to bless such a union is seen as unorthodox (though, strangely, the blessing of ships, planes and other mechanical constructs is perfectly all right, no matter what they will be used for). On the liberal side, the absence of the word “marriage” puts the union in a different (and lesser) category.
This goes to show that AI has yet to understand pastoral care and liturgy!
I find the second paragraph problematic, since it de-centres the people being blessed in favour of those who oppose it. That’s not our present understanding of how a prayer of blessing ought to work. If you got rid of the clause before the but it could be made to work.
The main problem with this prayer is that it is neither good (in modified form) nor bad. It’s just bland.
There seems to be a view going round that it’s just conservative evangelicals that wish a separate province. In my diocese there is a wide ranging group of evangelicals opposed to the direction of travel of the Church of England.
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/living-in-love-and-faith-good-episcopal-differentiation/
Andrew Goddard gives a meticulous analysis of differentiation in this article
I’ll publish shortly a separate article linking to this analysis by Andrew Goddard, as the comment threads on this article are now rather cumbersome to navigate.