LLF: an explanatory video by Bishop Martyn Snow
on Tuesday, 15 October 2024 at 12.27 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England, General Synod
The Diocese of St Albans has published this 8 minute video on YouTube: Diocesan Synod LLF October 2024.
Lord, have mercy!
If this kind of vacuous managementalist-politico-therapeutical rhetoric is the best +MS can come up with to, I fear we’re already doomed. One cursory mention of God. Nothing in the name of Jesus. Scripture nowhere appealed to. What is the church now? The Ekklesia of the living God, who is Way, Truth and Life, or a fractious secular club where we just try to forge our own muddled compromises.
Howzat! for an open mind!!
Short summary: “We are apologising, but not changing. We are fracturing, in order to remain united.”
Slightly longer summary: “We have apologised to LGBTQI+ people and so we must let them have ceremonies that appear to be marriages; but nothing has changed because these services are definitely not marriages. I understand that some churches will now need to reject their bishops; but by receiving that bishop’s permission to do so, I hope that we will preserve unity. Please don’t leave anyone!”
There is one obvious change, which is the move towards a regional structure designed to hold together differences in theology in the one church. But wait, more significantly is a reliance on science and philosophy to inform the C of E’s theology, which is its liturgy. Suddenly liturgy has taken centre stage all dressed up in its shiny new clothes, while the bible exits right. The audience gasps in amazement.
Come on. Science has always informed theology and rightly so – unless you think people like Galileo should still be held under house arrest by the church for saying what is true, And that the world was a literal seven day creation?
Just to add to David Runcorn’s very sensible comment. People like Galileo and Copernicus used scientific method to show that the then current faith based understanding of cosmology was wrong and needed to be modified. The church resisted strongly but, in time, adapted to the new science based understanding perfectly happily, and found a way of fitting it within biblical teaching. People like Darwin used scientific method and the fossil record to show that the then current faith based understanding of creation was wrong and needed to be modified. The church resisted strongly but, in time, adapted to the new… Read more »
Just to clarify. I wrote this before I had seen David’s post on a later thread on Inclusive Evangelicals – When Doctrine meets Dinosaurs
It’s gratifying to see that we are closely aligned after some past disagreements – at least on about 90% of his article.
Hi Simon. For the record I have never been completely clear what the problem was – but I will take 90%!
David, Whilst valuing the work that you do, I still have concerns about the way that you deal with the issue of homosexuality in your writings; in particular whether you make appropriate space for the breadth of academic and personal views about homosexual history, rather than presenting material from one single academic theory. But a couple of weeks ago I was struck by a comment from Tim Chesterton “The late great John R.W. Stott had a rule that before he criticised a person in writing, he would not only read their work but also talk to them about it in… Read more »
Put simply faith is believing in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. There is a lot of sex out there in the cosmos, the question is about how it is to be ordered in a faithful Christian society, which takes us back to the Creation myths. Clearly there is something in the environment that causes natural variations, but the bible is not surprised by this. Where the bible sets sex within a lifelong marriage between a man and a women, science sees a selfish gene, You choose.
Well said, David. Loved your piece on Via Media on this subject – you said exactly what I’ve long felt, only in a more lucid and expressive manner.
But +MS name-checked Science, Psychology and Sociology without seeing fit to reference Theology or Biblical Studies. What is the guiding epistemology of LLF – if indeed it has one?
Have you read `Living in Love and Faith’? Including
PART TWO
Paying attention: what is going on? 58 Chapter 5: Society 65 Chapter 6: Science 102 Chapter 7: Religion 121
No I don’t believe in 7 day creation, evolution is just as miraculous in my view. But it was more accurate than other creation myths at the time in terms of providing an ordered view of creation. I think science has proved this central message to be true. So yes scripture needs to be read in accordance with what was known at the time, allowing for a certain degree of poetic licence, the literary style of much of the OT. It’s clearly not a science book, but a book of salvation. I am not aware that science or Galileo ever… Read more »
“Suddenly liturgy has taken centre stage all dressed up in its shiny new clothes, while the bible exits right.“ This seems to me a strange comment. Did the reformed Church of England not emerge in Tudor times out of arguments over the liturgy, as the place where the church’s theology was articulated? And by “the Bible exits” don’t you mean that one way of interpreting the Bible on the question of sexuality is found wanting in the light of other messages within the Bible and in the light of the other sources of authority within the church (which are tradition,… Read more »
There’s a large and growing number of evangelicals who are inclusive. And conservative evangelicals are not the only group who ‘know’ their doctrine and ecclesiology are right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. As witness the jibes at those who are ‘ignorant’ of ecclesiology, rather than differing on aspects of it.
A closed mind is a closed mind, whether it’s owner’s authority is the Bible, tradition, or, indeed, science.
“A closed mind is a closed mind, whether its owner’s authority is the Bible, tradition, or, indeed, science.” Agreed. It’s a challenge to us all to see it from the other’s perspective.
I would describe myself as inclusive, but not affirming. I don’t know of anyone who is not inclusive.
Roman Catholics and Plymouth Brethren can be somewhat exclusive?
I was responding to the video and whether this moved the dial one way or another. After all the whole LLF process is described as experimental so it’s interesting to see where this experiment will end up. No one knows! All we know from this video is that science, psychology and sociology is indeed driving doctrine and trumping theology on a matter of salvation.
Interesting, though, that LLF included more than science/social science which are named in the video: there was also the History working group, which – as is so often the case – doesn’t get a mention. I wrote about this at the time, on https://modernchurch.org.uk/prof-helen-king-living-in-love-and-faith-doing-history
Yes, strange that. Maybe they think a ‘new thing’ is needed – the scientific method. Experiments galore!
They’re leaving or have already left in droves. The collapse in the numbers of baptisms and confirmations shows that they’re not joining either. All is vanity and a chasing after the wind.
Fair summary. The video brought statues of Janus to mind.
“Regional… but not individual dioceses”- does anyone know what that was about?
Classic managerialism. Let’s invent a new structure so we can then demolish the inefficient old structure and save money!
As ever, LLF seems to be about LG people ….where is there anything for BTQUI+ folk?
I think this is perhaps inevitable – and perhaps for that reason “good” (in a very loose sense). Very Short summary – I don’t like it; but I don’t think there is an obviously better way given ‘everything’ in where we are as a church. So maybe doing something and then letting the fallout happen so it can be responded to is better than a slow march with no obvious direction. People may be making life choices e.g. “do I want to join the local URC church so I can marry my partner, or if I wait another year can… Read more »