Updated Friday
This continues the story that began here: Another commissioning service.
Friday updates
Statement from the Diocese of London
31 July 2024
“We are conscious of questions raised regarding the recent commissioning services that have taken place at All Souls Langham Place and St Helen’s Bishopsgate. Incumbents have been reminded before and following these services of their responsibilities to ensure that the law of the Church of England as expressed in canon and liturgy is observed, and that all safeguarding requirements are fully met.
“In terms of the ongoing LLF process, we recognise that some will feel the need for structural provision in the light of what has been passed by General Synod. The London College of Bishops represents a breadth of traditions, and together is committed to ensuring the necessary support is available to all equally in our Diocese.
“There is more work to be done, both in London and across the country. We hope that everyone will work with the process to ensure a future in which all can flourish in the Church of England.”
Sarah Mullally is in no position to give anybody lessons on compliance with canon law.
Surely an improvement on thinking that Paula Vennells would make a good Bishop of London ? As we have seen over and over again, adherence to Canon Law is no safeguard against severe errors of judgement. Jesus stood outside Jewish Law to do what was morally right and we should follow in his footsteps.
A strong statement to make. One which requires expansion beyond one sentence.
Sarah Mullally has been at the vanguard of treating canon law, and Synod itself, with disdain in regard to LLF.
The instances of this behaviour by her have been described and condemned – in the public domain – again and again.
Please do not now express astonishment at this point and demand “evidence”.
No astonishment was expressed. Perhaps you need to read my comment again. If you are going to assert that a Bishop has treated Canon law with disdain and has no standing in which to comment on a situation in the Diocese she shepherds then, when questioned, you need to back up such a comment. Others may have done so on multiple occasions but that does not provide a get out clause. To not do so is bad form, and that would not do when we seek to be people of salt and light. Indeed, if others have done so in… Read more »
Read the papers and watch the public recordings of General Synod since February 2023.
Your inference that the manifest failures of Sarah Mullally is a matter that must be subject to intricate citation does not bear serious examination.
The public record is there – go and read it
There has been a huge amount of due process behind LLF, including many votes in Synod, full consultation with different stakeholder organisations and working groups and it has worked out over years. Compare that with the virtual lack of process for Issues in Human Sexuality and you can see that LLF has been a major project that has taken its time and taken pains to consult throughout. I think you are confusing “disdain for Synod and Canon Law” with “things have been agreed that I don’t agree with”. Of course, if you want to really show disdain for Synod, overlook… Read more »
Don’t confuse long process with due process.
A friend of mine is a mad keen Welsh Rugby Union fan. Whenever Wales lose it wasn’t because they other side did well, or the Welsh team fell short it on the day. It’s always because the ref was biased, the rules weren’t followed, there was something wrong with the pitch, that the opposition cheated. In his mind Wales haven’t lost a game in 30 years, it was always stolen from them. When you talk about the outcome of LLF you sound very much like him. The process in the complex area of LLF has been good, as well as… Read more »
There has indeed been a lot of process here, but the question is whether it has been the right process for decisions with doctrinal implications.
You may say so, but there are plenty of others who are and would say the same thing (albeit perhaps with a bit more effort).
A total non-response – but at least she mentioned safeguarding!
For all the talk of process it’s the Archbishop of York that calls the shots, and without structural differentiation that protects clergy from charges of homophobia then it’s hard to see how all can flourish.
Adrian – is that the purpose of structural differentiation – to protect clergy from charges of homophobia? It could equally, or more valuably, be to protect LGBTQIA+ people from homophobic clergy.
Those promoting structural differentiation have said it is necessary for people on both sides of the debate to flourish.
In terms of homophobia, in a recent employment case …
Mr Tatchell, a prominent campaigner on gay and lesbian issues, said: “xxxxx opposition to churches being compelled to hold gay marriages is shared by much of the population, including many equality and human rights organisations.
“Freedom of speech should only be limited or penalised in extreme circumstances, such as when a person incites violence against others. Mr xxxx words did not cross this threshold.”
Why should clergy be protected from charges of homophobia when they ARE being homophobic?
Because such accusations are without foundation.
😂 One of the funniest comments I’ve read from Peter on this blog, and that’s saying something!
No they are not. There are plenty of Christians of all denominations who wish to see the Church move to acceptance of same sex marriage. And these are people who have looked carefully at the Bible and at Church Tradition and have honestly come to this conclusion. The fact that some Christians refuse to contemplate not only SSM but any relationship with Christians who disagree with them can only be put down to homophobia. (“Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who identify or are perceived as being lesbian, gay or bisexual. It has… Read more »
Peter, please provide the evidence you have that charges of homophobia against clergy are without foundation.
I disagree with Peter – I think the term ‘homophobic’ is justified of at least some opponents of SSM. But I don’t see it’s reasonable, or possible, to ask someone ‘provide the evidence you have that charges of homophobia against clergy are without foundation’. How do you prove a negative?
Janet, I’m getting confused by the contortions of these comments and by the actions being taken by the CEEC and Alliance. They are in themselves homophobic, wanting to create a safe space for themselves, protected from contact with those who are prepared to argue for equal marriage and enter an equal marriage themselves.
The Church of England has become more systemically homophobic in the years since Lambeth 1.10. Homophobia is experienced in many ways – in actions taken against or language used about particular individuals and in the entire hostile position taken by those opposed to SSM.
We ordained women have been experiencing similar since at least 1987, and I agree that it hurts. I deplore recent developments from CEEC and SHB, as you will know if you’ve read my previous comments. I also deplore of the branding of people not opposed to Prayers of Love & Faith as ‘unorthodox’. But, my point about the difficulty of proving a negative still stands. How do you provide evidence that you’re not beating your wife? And I would not label all opponents of SSM homophobic, any more than I would label all those opposed to women’s ordination ‘misogynist’. For… Read more »
Structural differentiation is not required to give clergy the protection you say they need. What is needed is an agreement from the House of Bishops of the areas under which they would give full backing to their clergy and throw out any complaints levelled against them. This should include a refusal to use the Prayers of Love and Faith on grounds of theological conscience. Alongside that should be a reciprocal commitment to throw out any complaints levelled at clergy who do use the Prayers of Love and Faith within the stated guidelines. The House of Bishops could issue such a… Read more »
Thin gruel
Are misogyny and homophobia qualities which become a Christian?- Discuss
Holding to the orthodox belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is neither homophobic nor misogynistic. “Marriage is intended by God to be a creative relationship, as his blessing enables husband and wife to love and support each other in good times and in bad, and to share in the care and upbringing of children. For Christians, marriage is also an invitation to share life together in the spirit of Jesus Christ. It is based upon a solemn, public and life-long covenant between a man and a woman, declared and celebrated in the presence of God and… Read more »
You do realise that if the orthodox get their new province, it will be known colloquially as “the Homophobic Province”?
The word ‘orthodox’ really needs to be wrested from them.
Forgive me, as I am trying to follow the logic.
In England, where virtually no one under 20 attends the Church of England (except perhaps in places like HTB);
The general public will rise from its dormant self to bother to declare a squabble they don’t manifestly participate in, and declare said unit ‘the homophobic part’;
When they aren’t interested in the other part, which they would call, presumably, the CofE I don’t go to or understand why it is so-called, since no one in England attends it.
The reality is that people are ready identifying ‘homophobic’ churches. Students who discover the trendy church does not fit their understanding of the radical love of the gospel, the suburban family who withdraw their children from holiday club when they find a godparent condemned, the accountant who regularly attends church and who is shocked at a bigoted sermon by a visiting preacher. All of these are truths.
Or even …. “Methodists”.
And amen to what you wrote, Bob. Marriage is great. It’s just that you don’t want any other relationship for same-sex people to be blessed besides, even if it’s not marriage.
Actually its not that much different from being on your tod! I remember being very forcibly challenged by a very radical (married) Christian lady to explain why I thought one state better, or different than the other. Certainly no room for over romanticised ideas there!
What you are quoting is not ‘the definition of marriage within the Church of England’; it’s a part of the Pastoral Introduction to the Common Worship Marriage Service. I’m uncertain as to the official doctrinal status of Common Worship, but I’d be surprised if the material therein is considered to be one of the Historic Formularies of the Church of England. If anything is ‘the definition’ of marriage in the Church of England, it’s Canon B30 which further points to the BCP for those wanting the teaching of the C of E. Article 32 will also figure.
Common Worship has absolutely zero doctrinal status.
The bit about “lifelong” is somewhat qualified by the C of E’ s practice of remarrying divorcees within the lifetime of their former spouses.
The understanding that in Christian marriage a husband exercises authority over his wife and a wife submits to her husband has been weakened by making the inclusion of the words “and obey” optional in the bride’s wedding vows.
Things ain’t what they used to be.
Certainly not. As I understand it (via Elaine Storkey et al) Christian marriage is actually based on equality – shared and equal responsibility – rather than paternalism based domination. But then I reject anything coming from Arthur Wallace, David Pawson and Restoration.
And now men can be charged with raping their wives!!
Whatever next? Thank God things have changed.
I have only had one couple, in many years, wishing to include ‘and obey’ in the vows.
However I rather suspect in that case the groom obeyed his wife very meekly.
It must be a great privilege to have so clear an insight into precisely what God intends.
Apart from the genital differences, much of what you declare to be the mind of God applies rather well to same sex relationships.
Those in such relationships also seem to be as capable of sharing the care and upbringing of children.
Has the CT article on ‘fears of repercussions’ and secrecy been taken down? Hopefully there’s an understanding that withholding names of the ‘commissioned’ ‘leaders’ would be unwise. Going down a secret commissioning road would be another serious turn on the current drive towards lawless chaos. All this can still be avoided, by announcing a review, and having the humility to decide to respect others’ theological consciences, reciprocally – in the way that their own consciences have been respected by the wider Church over women priests. They themselves have managed to respect others’ consciences too, over other issues. For example, they… Read more »
It is not an issue of conscience. Revisionists repeat this line of argument over and over, and it entirely misses the point.
We are called to separate and distinguish ourselves from false teaching and false teachers.
That is the reason for the structural differentiation which will now emerge between those who hold to the orthodox faith, and those who have abandoned the Bible as the basis for their beliefs and turned away from the true understanding of marriage.
What about people who hold to the orthodox faith, hold on to the Bible as the basis for their beliefs, but happen to disagree with you and yours? Do we need another province too? How many provinces are enough?
You already have two provinces
There is currently not a single province in the Church of England in which gay and lesbian couples can be married. Nor is a motion to allow them to be married currently before General Synod, and nor is it likely to be put before GS in the foreseeable future. Their desire to be married in the churches which they have been faithfully attending and supporting for decades has been rejected by the church they love, and will likely continue to be rejected in the foreseeable future. So, Peter, currently it is you who have two provinces. LGBTQI+ people have nothing.… Read more »
You present the main reason behind setting up another province very well – so that people on both sides on the debate can flourish. Why do you reject it? It is the only pastorally sensitive solution put forward so far.
We already have a “pastorally sensitive” solution in the Scottish Episcopal Church – those who have concluded that same-sex marriage is compatible with the faith are able to celebrate those marriages in church, and those who have concluded otherwise are able to… choose not to. It’s hard to see what “pastoral sensitivities” are infringed upon by this settlement.
I’m pretty sure the Scottish Episcopal Church allowed an evangelical church to leave for GAFCON.
I think it is Westhill Church near Aberdeen. They took a church vote and left by a majority of 87%. The Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney allowed them to leave.
Do you think it’s a good way forward in the Church of England given that the Scottish Episcopal Church let them go?
Is it possible that the differences are irreconcilable and going separate ways would allow both sides to make progress in the directions they would like to go in?
I think decisions about buildings would need to be on a case-by-case basis. With Westhill the building was inextricably linked with that particular congregation and tradition, and there were other churches locally that faithful Episcopalians could attend. A different decision was made with respect to Christ Church, Harris, where the SEC had continuing need for the building with no others available locally. I think the CofE has enough church buildings redundant such that most schismatic congregations that could demonstrate ongoing viability could be leased one, though rural geography might complicate this. What can’t happen, however, is for schismatic congregations to… Read more »
The legal situation in England is rather different from that of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Church buildings do not belong to their clergy or worshipping congregation, nor to those on the church electoral roll. They are there for all the parishioners (i.e. the residents of the geographical parish) to worship in, in accordance with the canons and authorized forms of the English Church. Unless the buildongs are redundant they cannot be disposed of to another group, and even in that scenario it’s by no means a given.
I’m aware of that, but we all know that the process by which a building is declared redundant is far from objective. Selling outright might not be legally possible, but I bet leases are doable.
Buildings in the SEC belong, as I understand it, to the diocese (exceptions may exist given the SEC’s messy emergence and the adoption of the qualified chapels). This certainly seems to make decision making a bit more cut-and-dried.
‘Reject’ is too strong a word. I’m not a member of the Church of England so I’m in no position to reject or accept it. Look, I’m a convinced pacifist who believes that nonviolence is a vital characteristic of genuine Christian discipleship. I don’t think this is a minor issue; Paul was incensed that Jewish and Gentile Christians refused to eat together, so how do you think he would have reacted if he had learned that they were killing each other? But the Anglican Church of Canada (my church) includes pacifists and just war theorists. We work together, make friends… Read more »
You or we?
Peter, I think the moves to set up another Province are absolutely the wrong thing to do. But I still have some sympathy with why they are happening. You say ‘you already have two provinces’, and I understand why you say that. But the problem for me is there are two provinces, one of which I serve in as a priest, but neither of which I would describe as ‘for me’. I want provinces to be headed by Archbishops and Bishops who aren’t perfect but who are true examples of people faithfully serving the God they believe in. People who… Read more »
“We are called to separate and distinguish ourselves from false teaching and false teachers.”
If you really believe that, then you should do what many others have done in the past – come out and leave the C of E and set up your own denomination.
Indeed – both Martin Lloyd Jones, Arthur Wallace and others made the same demand back in the late 1970’s / early 1980’s. And effectively split the charismatic movement which, prior to them, was essentially about renewed unity.
Don’t be so quick to condemn those who disagree with you as faithless and false. Calvin, Tyndale, Wycliffe and Luther were condemned (and in at least one case, butchered) by the papal authorities as ‘false teachers’.
One man’s heretic is another man’s saint.
Quite. If you genuinely believe that the CofE is no longer orthodox, that you are (as has been repeatedly claimed) no longer in communion with its bishops, then you should have the courage of your convictions. But no, these dissenters believe they can enact their schism and con their way into retaining a large chunk of the CofE’s resources.
Peter, I have not abandoned the Bible and I hold to the orthodox faith. Will you please, please use less inflammatory language?
Same-sex marriage isn’t orthodox, Tim, it’s a 21st century innovation in Protestantism. I can’t make myself X just by saying I am X.
It’s not unorthodox either. The definition of marriage is not a core part of Christian doctrine.
My problem with pronouncing people as unorthodox is that somewhere out there is someone who is making the same pronouncement about me. Example: I claim to believe the Catholic faith. Traditional RCs would respond, ‘Excuse me? Protestantism isn’t Catholic; it’s a 16th century innovation…’ etc. etc. 16th century Protestantism claimed to be a biblical reform movement. Anabaptists, who were the main victims of this reform movement, replied ‘Excuse me? How can you be biblical when you burn people you disagree with at the stake?’ To them the just war theory was a 3rd century liberal revisionist innovation in a church… Read more »
Well, Tim, you need to assent to the Catholic Faith of the Catholic Church, not some local breakaway.
Why are you not a Roman Catholic? Presumably because you think it has false teachings.
But how do you know your beliefs are true?
Where do you find truth in the cacophony of conflicting voices?
This was the question that troubled John Henry Newman when he read Manning’s essay about Augustine.
‘Know’ is a strong word. I believe my beliefs are true because I try to make sure they align with the teachings of the Word made flesh, Jesus. I’m sure i get some of it wrong, though.
I’m curious, James – are you a Roman Catholic?
Err, excuse me, Peter- to say that I and others who disagree with you on this question “have abandoned the Bible as the basis for their beliefs” is to show zero respect for those who claim to honour the Bible but use scripture, tradition, reason and experience in a different way from you. Why bother post on here if that’s your attitude?
Tradition? I can see a new definition coming on.
Why post on here? For the same reason you do.
I genuinely do not understand your post, Adrian. If anyone thinks that their religious beliefs are not influenced by tradition then they are mistaken. Surely you cannot mean that?
My question, I think, was clear: why does Peter want to say something on here at all if (as it seems) he has no respect for those with whom he disagrees?
Who decides what is false teaching? Where good, faithful Christians holding an equally high view of scripture disagree on its interpretation, who decides what is false? Who is the ultimate authority?
Biblically and historically, such questions are decided by gatherings of the Church’s leaders. In the case of the C of E, that would be the bishops and General Synod. They have decided after lengthy due process.
Who has decided that their understanding and authority are greater than the collective mind of the Church, and justify schism?
Janet: the Church of England bishops supporting same-sex marriage have. They have not submitted their beliefs to the judgment of the Universal Church, the Church Catholic, or even to the Bishops of the Anglican Communion but have acted on their own. ‘Securus judicat orbis terrarum’, as St Augustine said – words that later troubled the Anglican Newman.
There is, nowadays, no mechanism for the Universal Church to meet and decide anything. That’s a function of the UC now being so large and so disparate. Who would gather the RCs, Baptists, Quakers, Orthodox, Lutherans, Salvation Army, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren together? How would that work? But we do have ample mechanism for the C of E to decide, and it has decided by lawful means.
The New Testament tells us to obey our leaders. Apparently that teaching is ‘adiophora’ to some evangelicals.
There is a mechanism: you can join the Roman Catholic Church and renounce all the Protestant splits that you detail above. Or you could say – as you do – ‘Nobody knows the answer because we all disagree, so chose whatever suits you.’ That is Protestantism for you. The New Testament tells us to obey the Scriptures. Apparently Protestants say nobody can agree on what they mean – or liberals say ‘They are wrong, just human ignorance’ if they disagree with them (as Luke Timothy Johnson says). So you are in a big confusing wilderness – just as John Henry… Read more »
‘The New Testament tells us to obey the Scriptures’
Which, of course, meant the Old Testament scriptures. Although the NT also tells us we can break some of them (for instance, we don’t need to be circumcised or keep the food laws, even though in the OT this was grounds for being cut off from God’s people.
I wonder how anonymous leaders work. Do the led know who their leaders are? Are they sworn to secrecy?
Amusingly, a theologian well known to be of the ‘liberal persuasion’ in some respects, Karl Rahner, may well have loved it…he claimed there to be anonymous Christians, so why not anonymous leaders?
My question is why was there a second service. Were these men unable to attend the All Souls service because of a diary clash or the numbers attending needing a second service? Or was it that one involved female ASOs and the other only men? If the reason was the latter what is going on? Is scripture clear on the role of women teaching and ministering in churches or not? Is it as clear as they suggest the question of same sex sexual expression and commitment is? If they envisage a church able to encompass difference on scripture interpretation and… Read more »
The St Helen’s service was for young(ish) people being commissioned at the start of their public ministry.
The All Souls service was for not-so-young people being commissioned as overseers of other pastors.
They are not the same thing
You’re muddling two different commissionings. The All Souls one was for bishops and priests to provide spiritual oversight and support for clergy and parishes who no longer trust their diocesan bishop and consider a part of the CofE to have moved into heterodoxy. The SHB commissioning was for people due to be ordained deacon this year, but who refuse to be ordained by, or under the oversight of, their diocesan bishop. Hence they are still lay, not in the threefold ministry, and not deacons. (I have a quibble with laying hands on them – a liturgical act that bespeaks ordination… Read more »
Come on Pete…..you should know better than this sort of “carry on” and then trying to justify it……you surprise me.
Glad that I can still surprise you! As it happens, it’s not a matter of “trying to justify it.” Which bit of what I wrote do you find implausible?
Bishop Peter, thank you for joining in the discussion. Why is forms of sexuality such a first order issue in the evangelical mind, compared to racism, oppression of the poor, hatred and oppression of people of other faiths and cultures, the morality of war, the status of women, bullying in the church? It doesn’t seem to be a high priority in Jesus’ ministry; Jesus welcomes all who come to him and loves them into heaven, rather than othering them and bullying them into heaven. “By this shall all people know that you are my disciples, if you love one another”.… Read more »
Spare us the ridiculous caricature of St Helen’s, Bishopsgate
Indeed, Gerry. I’d be interested to know what actions these two churches and HTB will be taking in response to the horrors in Southport on Monday, the genuinely Christ-like unity and compassion shown by the citizens of that town and subsequent events. Any? And, given that a major contributor to the funds of HTB and Alpha funds is also heavily involved in GBNews, with its distorted messages, do they have any qualms about social conscience? (I’m quoting various articles, published both on here and on Surviving Church as my source. I am trusting that neither site would repeat them without… Read more »
I suspect that you already know the answer to your question! The authorisation of liturgy that contradicts the belief of the Church, the denial of the teaching of scripture and the subversion of the doctrine of marriage make this a first order issue. I’m entirely with you on justice, anti-racism, the equality of women (all of which are taught very clearly in scripture). I was using vanguardism in its Leninist sense. SHB are probably not where I would be ecclesiologically or in terms of their understanding of ministry. But they are seeking to safeguard the future ministry of the CofE… Read more »
Reference your second sentence. One could make the same complaint about the second marriage of our current king. But that was not held to be a first order issue. I wonder why not.
I am happy to be called a liberal and I have spent decades in ministry contributing to the life of the church. So, I think that your comment that people like me are creating a ‘wilderness’ is both untrue and rude. I invite you to retract your comment and apologise.
“The authorisation of liturgy that contradicts the belief of the Church, the denial of the teaching of scripture and the subversion of the doctrine of marriage make this a first order issue.” 1) Liturgy has been commended, not authorised. It is not contrary to the belief of the church on marriage because the PLF are not a marriage service. If you believe the PLF services contradict Canon Law test your belief in court. If you don’t, your opinion is just an opinion, and one that the majority disagree with. 2) Those who support same-sex relationships do not deny scripture, just… Read more »
Thank you for such a clear and articulate response to Pete. One irony of finding him involved in promoting alternative, unauthorised (and secret) ministry initiatives in the CofE is that he would have been one of the last bishops I can think of who would have tolerated anything like this on his own episcopal patch.
Bishop Pete, I was ordained in a contemplative Order in the RC Church in 1964, and left following Pope Paul VI’s ruling on birth control, and the gradual rowing back on Vatican II. I came into the C of E as a worker-priest in 1973, and eventually vicar in the East End of London, and was privileged to work alongside Prebendary John Pearce, Bishop Martin Wallace, Ken Leech, Bill Kirkpatrick. and others. We all had a deep respect and love for each other, and learned from each other, and I consider myself very blessed to have known them and worked… Read more »
Nice to see a mention of Bill Kirkpatrick. I met him at St Cuthbert’s Philbeach Gardens in 2006. I was already aware of his Canadian origin.
What a heartwarming response in the midst of this depressing bout of point scoring and cruel comment.
Thank you.
‘Why is forms of sexuality such a first order issue in the evangelical mind’ – only in the minds of some evangelicals. There are thousands of Inclusive Evangelicals.
I have to admit that this talk of ‘adiaphora’ and ‘first order’ has left this parson of little brain quite confused, for I don’t quite see the principles on which the distinction is being advanced. Is it that some things may be left to the individual conscience, and others may not without falling outside the boundaries of orthodox Christianity? If so, what are the controlling parameters? Legality? Ethics? Scripture? This odd category of adiaphora, legitimate disagreement on what’s permissible underwrites the right in conscience to be obscenely rich as permitted by law, or to make a living by advising others… Read more »
That’s fascinating. How was ‘soldier’ different in Tertullian’s time than in ours?
I would have thought wanting to watch people burned to death was a first-order issue…
In my translation for “soldier” read “gladiator”. I think the problem being, for a man like Tertullian, that such people served in the public shows and plays that took people away from a focus on the church. I think a second problem was that members of all three professions had an alleged side-line in prostitution, both straight and gay. Whether such allegations were true, or Christian anti-Pagan polemic, is a much disputed question. If you read the surviving Pagan texts there is certainly much ribald comment on the proclivities of such people. But whilst the Pagan comment is comic but… Read more »
Thanks. Yes, the Christian suspicion of actors has a very long history.
But not actresses, apparently.
Actresses too, when there were female actors (a rather late phenomenon in England). And now male and female are both called actors.
Sorry Janet, my comment was a weak attempt at a joke about bishops speaking to actresses. But so weak a joke it was totally obscure.
Sorry I missed the joke! What was it the actress and the bishop are supposed to have said to each other?
The joke loses its force when female thespians are termed actors.
That sounds more dismissive than I intended. I observe, with increasing interest, the way our language is evolving. Often, it seems to me, that leads to less precision. I don’t generally favour the ‘ess’ suffix for females, but ‘actress’ has connotations of beauty and glamour that ‘actor’ doesn’t – especially when applied to women.
Of course some innovations are more concise, lend force, or promote awareness. And that’s all to the good.
“Actress” historically had euphemistic connotations of being a sex worker, “as the actress said to the bishop” generally follows a double entendre or the type of suggestive remark typical of the Carry on films or “Are you being served?” Think “my, that’s a big one”.
That’s what I was hinting at with ‘connotations of beauty and glamour’. Having complained of modern imprecision of language, I should have been more precise!
My father practiced law back in the day when legal documents contained words like “testatrix,” executrix’ and “et ux.”
Don’t you miss the word “aviatrix”? It gave Amelia Earhart a bit more panache than simply being an “aviator.”
I have heard of one or two churches where singing is led by a cantrix.
Except at awards ceremonies. Then the women are happy to have a category called “actress”!
The two services were commissioning people for different things. The All Souls service was commissioning people to serve as “overseers” i.e. “substitutes for bishops as far as legally possible without a third province”. The St Helen’s service was about commissioning trainee ministers to enter training roles i.e. “substitutes for curacies as far as legally possible without a third province”. Quite a few of those involved are complementarians who don’t believe that a woman should be the senior minister in a church; but all the complementarian evangelicals who I know place disagreement about that issue in the box of adiaphora –… Read more »
I suspect I won’t be popular or unchallenged for saying this, but to me these commissioning are all a total safeguarding nightmare and an abuser’s dream and needs to be called out urgently. It will almost certainly lead to the damage of yet more vulnerable people and continue to discourage reporting of abuse. Isn’t our track record bad enough already? There are red flags everywhere you look. To name a few: secrecy and fear; pick and mix lines of authority and accountability according to ‘conscience’; the use/witholding of money to exert influence; church office holders publicly voicing disrespect and lack… Read more »
The amount of vitriol flying around between Christians at the moment is striking. It reminds me of a friend in publishing who told me that crime writers conventions were fine, indeed the more violent & gory the novel, the nicer the author, but those for romantic novelists were feud-ridden nightmares, with everyone hating everyone else.
I think your friend may be speaking truth there, Francis. As a very amateur writer, my nasty types are basically expressions of my unredeemed self, without ANY better qualities!
Interesting to consider whether All Souls or SHB were full of secret romantic novelists ….my internal conversation this morning about recent threads was talking about ‘bile’ but I completely agree with you Francis- vitriol sums things up well.I also agree with Anglican in Exile. This has the potential to be a safeguarding disaster for all the reasons you so clearly set out- and if it is a secret ‘pure’ sect no one on the inside would dream of reporting anything untoward to the ‘enemy’ outside. No- one did speak out up in favour of misogyny or homophobia as Christian values… Read more »
These are the tentative first steps towards setting up structural differentiation which has been signalled for sometime, and which Bishops and Synod have been warned about repeatedly, hardly a secret. If Bishops do not listen, and there is no sign of it so far, there will be a rocky road ahead, but it will happen in some shape or form. The objective behind structural differentiation is not simply about purity but about mutual flourishing. Is that too hard to understand? The sooner this is acknowledged and accepted the richer everyone will be.
I believe that the phrase ‘mutual flourishing’ has been totally discredited. Structural differentiation is not going to happen and really you know that very well. That won’t stop the noise from those claiming it to be inevitable but it comes from a minority group who would be better off in their own denomination.
“Mutual flourishing” has indeed been totally discredited, and trust in the arch bishops and bishops is very low. A very sad state of affairs in the Church of England. However I fail to see why anyone should be encouraged to leave the Church of England. How do you calculate the size of the group calling for differentiation? Number of churches? Number attending those churches as a proportion of total number attending? Total level of giving? Proportion of total number of under 18’s attending?
You would need to actually take the opinions of individuals. By and large, outside of a handful of “party” churches, these disagreements run through congregations as much and more as between them. And people’s views will depend very much on the circumstances of any “differentiation”. If you offer the fairy tale of everything carrying on as normal but they get to have a bishop who agrees with them about marrying same-sex couples then I suspect a lot of people might assent. When it becomes clear that they might need to move buildings, that their own congregation might split, that their… Read more »
As I understand it, the decision to opt into using PLF is the incumbent’s and not the PCC or wardens. So curates, wardens and PCCs will need to support the incumbent. This is, of course, what wardens and PCCs should be doing. You haven’t actually dealt with the points I raised concerning a point made by Graham Watts concerning a minority. Four evangelical churches in my diocese regularly have 75% of the total number of under 16’s attending on a Sunday. So they are a minority of the total number of parishes but a majority of the under 16’s. The… Read more »
I thought I’d addressed it by pointing out you’d need to talk to individuals rather than see parishes as homogenous blocks who share an opinion. If your 4 evangelical churches have 75% of under 16 but it turn out that 80% of their parents are actually affirming but attend those churches for the music / fellowship / teaching in other areas / being with other families then that 75% figure is rather an irrelevance.
I agree in general terms that wardens and other PCC members should support the clergy. This does not mean that they have to agree with everything the incumbent suggests.
I know of one warden who would say in PCC meetings that the vicar was inspired by God and anyone who disagreed with him was opposing God’s will.
I would imagine that on many PCCs there will be a range of views about PLF and many other issues. The decision is one for the incumbent but whatever he or she decides some of the PCC and wider congregation will be disappointed.
I agree. The whole LLF process has and will continue to divide the Church of England, nationally and locally.
The bit that is hard to understand is how your flourishing is in any way impaired by the flourishing of married people who happen to be of the same sex. It’s hard to understand because it isn’t, in any way. It’s just another variation on the “theology of cooties” the Society has been preaching for the last few years.
‘if it is a secret “pure” sect no one on the inside would dream of reporting anything untoward to the ‘enemy’ outside.’ Indeed, those concerned have not, as far as I know, made any statement about notorious abuses within their own circle.
Quite- the stitch up over the original proposal put to Synod to have an enquiry into the lengthy abusive regime allowed to run at Soul Survivor illustrates the point very well. So the C of E is back to the mantra- reputation first, victims never. ( They probably asked for it anyway ) Meanwhile the clarion cries of entitlement for ‘structural differentiation’, in all their euphemistic splendour , carry on apace . And for the ‘pure’ it seems all about what the group can forbid others from doing …. Murders of children in Stockport?? The far right instigating violent disorder… Read more »
Agreed. Though Soul Survivor was not, I think, within the CEEC magic circle. Smyth and Fletcher were.
John Smyth was cast out of ministry in 1982 – forty two years ago.
It is tendentious to seek to contaminate CEEC by association to Smyth.
Peter. You really need to check your facts. Smyth was not ‘cast out of ministry’ forty two years ago. He was clearly supported in his move to Zimbabwe where he continued ministry and leadership in the church and where further allegations of abuse surfaced, that went to court. There are significant questions being asked, quite rightly, of the evangelical networks in which he thrived as a leader, and which offered significant support to him even when facing serious allegations, and where his abuses went unreported. You surely know this is a matter of length investigation?
‘Cast out of ministry in 1982’ is probably not the best description, but I think Peter is correct to the extent that Smyth was rejected as a candidate for ordination at Winchester around that time (or possibly 1981).
Well, I am pretty sure Peter is claiming John Smyth’s abuses were ‘dealt with’ back then by ejecting him from ministry – so we should not be dragging this up now, he feels. He is factually wrong on this. Smyth was helped to move abroad to continue his ministry – and behaviour. Meanwhile as a former DDO may I say that the idea that anyone not selected for training to ordained ministry has been ‘cast out’ is rather alarming language.
Only Peter can say what he meant by ‘ministry’ in this context. I have merely pointed out that Smyth was never an ordained priest of the Church of England.
But the report is still awaited so maybe the association remains ? And the heartbreak for the victims?
Smyth was shipped off to Africa, where he continued abusing boys and young men, and was supported there by people who still have links to CEEC. They haven’t been forthcoming with statements re the case, there’s omertà.
And is why Anglican in Exile so rightly raised numerous Safeguarding red flags about the newly commissioned organisation – and why Bishop Pete should look deeply into his heart about the law of unintended consequences.
Regarding the omertà, the only press to be keeping this alive from time to time is good old Private Eye-
Funnily enough there seems to be no signs so far of one of the senior Archbishop suing them
I’m afraid much of the comment and discussion about John Smyth is superficial and inaccurate. He was not, of course, ordained although apparently a Lay Reader. It’s on record that he was rejected for ordination: the Bishop of Winchester at the time was (the late) John Vernon Taylor although I am told that the decision was not necessarily his. According to the Coltart Report, which I have linked more than once on TA, Smyth had ‘left’ the C of E while in Zimbabwe before moving to South Africa. The Coltart Report is really essential reading before public comment here about… Read more »
Rowland, I dutifully ploughed through the Coltart report- and I’m grateful that such things do not come my way regularly since I retired.But I am also curious about why you think it makes such a material difference to any ability to post comments here? What I read made me very angry because of the predictability of an offender who is let off the hook going on to have a long career abusing more and more victims. The manner in which he left Winchester is proof, if any were still needed, that internal fixes in safeguarding don’t fix anything Given this… Read more »
Mr Coltart is a solicitor and, I understand, a Senator in the Zimbabwe Parliament. His report contains a wealth of factual material about events in England as well as the history of Smyth’s activities in Zimbabwe. You should have picked up Smyth’s departure from the C of E, the ‘undertakings’ he gave and his effective ‘banishment’ from Zimbabwe after the collapse of the criminal trial. Many of these details are not available from elsewhere, and we are told that Mr Makin’s report will specifically exclude all events outside the UK, specifically England. Mr Coltart’s report is not dated, but it… Read more »
I can assure you my knowledge of the matter is neither superficial nor inaccurate.
I would also draw your attention to the matter of context.
My comment on Smyth was in response to an inference that The Church of England Evangelical Council is today contaminated by association with him.
I made no reference at all to Africa.
I’m frankly astonished and disappointed by this response. There is no suggestion in my comment that I thought yours to be superficial: I made no such suggestion in your case. Please see also my associated reply to David Runcorn.
I’m clearly wasting my time (and possibly readers’ as well) so I will say no more on this subject.
Rowland,
You are meticulous in regard to accuracy which is a blessing.
However, commentators have unhelpfully engaged in a re-examination of the deplorable actions of Smyth.
The original exchange on the matter was on an entirely different subject. I was refuting the inference that CEEC are contaminated by association with Smyth.
That is a manifestly unfair and damaging assertion which is the central matter.
In the light of some CEEC members’ ongoing support of Smyth after his abuse became known, and their failure to disassociate themselves from him or his activities, I think the assertion is fair.
Janet,
Are you saying that you have seen concrete evidence that current council members of CEEC were financial supporters of Zambezi Ministries and that you know for a fact that at the time of such direct financial support (if it actually exists) those same current CEEC Council members were aware of the behaviour of Smyth ?
Not current council members specifically, but people affiliated to CEEC. (‘CEEC exists to provide for the continuing need for an overarching group to which the networks can belong, based on common understandings of the Christian faith and its Anglican expression, and united by a common vision to promote and maintain orthodox evangelical theology and ethics at the heart of the Church of England.’ CEEC website)
That reminds me of something I was told at college. “You never wash the church’s dirty linen in public’, which, ipso facto, means it never does get washed……