Who are the schismatic Together for the Church of England ? is just as an important question. The first and most significant demand clearly stated of the Alliance is for the revisionist Archbishops and Bishops to follow the C of E’s constitution canon law B2 if Prayers of Love and Faith are made available. Anything else is unlawful and to make announcements via podcasts just adds to the distrust that the House of Bishops is gaining a reputation for and was clearly calculated to stoke up division. Hard to think of a less open and transparent way to make such… Read more »
They are those bishops, priests and deacons who are not being faithful to their vows as set out below. Bishops: Will you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it, will you refute error (Titus 1:9) and will you hand on entire the faith that is entrusted to you? Priests: Will you faithfully minister the doctrine and sacraments of Christ as the Church of England has received them, so that the people committed to your charge may be defended against error and flourish in the faith? Deacons: Do you believe the doctrine of the Christian… Read more »
I have said above that I disagree with Adrian Clarke that Canon B2 is needed. I also disagree with your assessment of the doctrine of Christ and the Church of England. I think this video of a talk by Brendan Robertson is helpful. Even better, there is a transcript in the description. https://youtu.be/-pGR-D0ExeA?si=0nznq4qpAkkPjKEs I recommend the whole of the video but the key section begins at 2:21. Essentially the position taken against gay couples is a fairly modern invention and, correctly read, the Bible is NOT against homosexuality. Thus far from progressive bishops being unfaithful to their views they are… Read more »
Trying to call Together for the CofE schismatic won’t wash. They’re not the ones demanding their own version of the CofE free from those who disagree with them about human sexuality.
Bob, can I suggest reframing your question? How about – ‘Bishops and clergy are charged at their ordination with upholding the doctrine of the church. I can only believe that those who support same-sex relationships and marriage are breaking their ordination vows. Can any explain how they believe they are not?’ Here would be my response. Thank you for your question. I did indeed promise to be faithful to the teachings of the church when I was ordained 45 years ago. I also support faithful same-sex relationships and marriage and do not believe I am breaking my vows in doing… Read more »
Thanks David, It’s really helpful to have that viewpoint expounded. But can I ask your doctrinal grounds for asserting that ‘The Church of England believes in the development of doctrine. That means being open and allowing doctrine to faithfully develop in response to new questions and understandings facing each generation.’ If I’ve unwittingly signed up to upholding a CofE Doctrine of the Development of Doctrine in my ordination vows, I fear I might be in breach! ‘Proclaiming the faith afresh in each generation’ as we promise, really doesn’t seem to me to be the same thing – I’ve always understood it’s about… Read more »
You can only vow what you believe to be truthful, Bob, but sometimes you must admit that you were wrong, down the line. They were grievously wrong, to me. Perhaps best not to vow at all, as the Lord required.
By presenting PLF as just a type of intercessionary prayer to be used in existing services, they are authorised under Canon B1. There is nothing in the wording of the prayers which suggests they are incompatible with Canon B1 – it’s probably why they are so anemic.
Canon B2 isn’t needed and calls for it to be invoked are purely political.
Justin Welby just made it political. The calculation on his part is breathtaking and in any other institution he would be asked to consider his position.
FearandTremolo
1 day ago
I think it’s much more parsimonious to assume that the CofE doesn’t have a decided view on sex or ethics, and probably hasn’t since we started putting Common Worship together. Bishops today are essentially politicians trying to hold together a theologically diverse Church without being able to simply slap the Prayer Book and say “whatever this says is what we think”. So it’s all a bit vague and it’s all a bit contradictory and it’s all a bit party politics because, yeah, it is. And the political parties will keep fighting each other in Synod and online, and any deeper… Read more »
Party politics is hardly new. Have you read Trollope’s Barchester novels?
Fr Dean
1 day ago
I wish Colin Coward wouldn’t be dismissive of the ‘Church of England’ when he means the bishops of the CofE; or the secretariat of the CofE or the General Synod of the CofE. With close on 30 years in Orders I know that the majority of the CofE are kind, loving and loveable people. They struggle to live up to the impossible ideal of Christ’s teachings as we all do but somehow do their best, and in the process of doing so enhance the Body of Christ. I think most of the bishops are inept and shouldn’t be given the… Read more »
I hope for the sake of their own mental health that the human beings who are trying to fulfil the impossible job of being Anglican bishops (I know a couple of them over there in England, and I’m friends with several of them here in Canada) never read the comments on TA.
Part of the problem is that they live in echo chambers. They glibly announced that we were going for 10,000 new house churches a while back. The numbers are going down. They equivocate on safeguarding. They talk about radical inclusion for LGBTQI+ people but don’t deliver. They have indoor and outdoor staff whilst the numbers using food banks rises. They amalgamate parishes but don’t reduce their own number. They attend a secret dining club called ‘Nobody’s Friends’. They concede that clergy morale is low but don’t have a clue how to change that. They say they want to increase vocations… Read more »
I wish you would spell out who the pronoun ‘they’ refers to in each case above, as (knowing some of the details about the cases you mention) it’s clear to me that it’s talking about a different group of people almost every time. I find it curious that most modern Anglicans continue to assert that bishops are essential for the being (not just the well-being) of the Church, but the vast majority of comments about bishops on Thinking Anglicans have been overwhelmingly negative for as long as I have been visiting this site (which must be more than a decade… Read more »
Last edited 11 hours ago by Tim Chesterton
Tim P
1 day ago
I found Colin’s article surprisingly moving (or I was surprised at something, perhaps how much I agreed). On one level it’s nothing new, but on another it’s refreshing to hear someone else say things like “At the moment we do not have a forum in which to explore the deepest truths and transformations that are taking place around the planet.” And that we must confront the deep theological differences and yet the church has become so good at avoiding addressing scandal after scandal. To stretch a metaphor I feel like the church has been kicking issues into the long grass,… Read more »
I just wonder what would have happened had Jeffrey John not been hounded to withdraw as Bishop of Reading designate. Had the Church of England just gently accepted same sex relationships with the minimum of fuss as it did remarriage after divorce, it would be so much calmer today.
The difference, I think, is what is sometimes called “the ick factor”. Most hetero- males have no trouble imagining requiring a divorce in order to marry a more compatible mate. But seeing themselves involved in a physical sexual relationship with another man is different–especially for those who matured before about 1970, I’d say, or who were educated in a male-dominated culture, such as boarding school.
‘Most hetero- males have no trouble imagining requiring a divorce in order to marry a more compatible mate.’ Well, maybe not if they invest authority in the words of Jesus, e.g. Mk Ch 10. And if they invest (or better, recognise) authority in the words of Jesus denouncing porneia (Mk Ch 7), this may be a more powerful influence shaping their rejection of same sex sexual activity, than simple physical repulsion.
And here we get into the discussion of exactly what Jesus meant in those moments. First of all, he certainly didn’t use the word “porneia”, because he didn’t speak a word of Greek. He spoke Aramaic. And then we get into whether those who translated the Gospels from Aramaic to Greek (and who did so, at the earliest, some 70 years after Jesus’ time) did so properly, with a total understanding of the Aramaic words he used.
Even with modern scholarship we struggle with Biblical translation so the chance is remote that the translation from Aramaic to Greek was entirely accurate. I think you have made an important point.
And it’s interesting how the sentences about the Pharisees being hypocrites because they set aside the laws of God to stick to their human traditions virtually never see the light of day….
Well, there is another perspective on the past beyond words, beyond ‘verbum’ as it were. We have photographic evidence of the horror of antisemitic genocide, the squalor of the 30s depression, the carnage of of WWI and American civil war trenches. etc., etc. Conservative Christians are amongst those groups who reconstruct the past by lifting out bible data and creating this kind of idealized version of the past. The naive protestant idealism of some forms of evangelicalism and catholic dogmatism are a prime examples. If by some ‘miracle’, if by some back to the future ‘DeLorean’ in a shopping Centre… Read more »
I believe I’m right in saying that most scholars believe there’s no evidence of an Aramaic original for any of the gospels. You appear to believe that gospels were written in Aramaic, existed in that language for a decade or two, and then were translated into Greek about 100 AD. On what evidence do you base this assertion?
I did not mean that there was ever a written Aramaic version of the Gospel stories. They were undoubtedly communicated orally for at least the first decade, and then some literate hearer began taking notes. Those notes were passed on to others and eventually translated to first century Greek (which is no more like modern Greek than the earliest forms of English are like our modern tongue).
Who are the schismatic Together for the Church of England ? is just as an important question. The first and most significant demand clearly stated of the Alliance is for the revisionist Archbishops and Bishops to follow the C of E’s constitution canon law B2 if Prayers of Love and Faith are made available. Anything else is unlawful and to make announcements via podcasts just adds to the distrust that the House of Bishops is gaining a reputation for and was clearly calculated to stoke up division. Hard to think of a less open and transparent way to make such… Read more »
They are those bishops, priests and deacons who are not being faithful to their vows as set out below. Bishops: Will you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it, will you refute error (Titus 1:9) and will you hand on entire the faith that is entrusted to you? Priests: Will you faithfully minister the doctrine and sacraments of Christ as the Church of England has received them, so that the people committed to your charge may be defended against error and flourish in the faith? Deacons: Do you believe the doctrine of the Christian… Read more »
I have said above that I disagree with Adrian Clarke that Canon B2 is needed. I also disagree with your assessment of the doctrine of Christ and the Church of England. I think this video of a talk by Brendan Robertson is helpful. Even better, there is a transcript in the description. https://youtu.be/-pGR-D0ExeA?si=0nznq4qpAkkPjKEs I recommend the whole of the video but the key section begins at 2:21. Essentially the position taken against gay couples is a fairly modern invention and, correctly read, the Bible is NOT against homosexuality. Thus far from progressive bishops being unfaithful to their views they are… Read more »
Trying to call Together for the CofE schismatic won’t wash. They’re not the ones demanding their own version of the CofE free from those who disagree with them about human sexuality.
So what do you call those bishops, priests and deacons who are being unfaithful to the vows that they have made?
Bob, can I suggest reframing your question? How about – ‘Bishops and clergy are charged at their ordination with upholding the doctrine of the church. I can only believe that those who support same-sex relationships and marriage are breaking their ordination vows. Can any explain how they believe they are not?’ Here would be my response. Thank you for your question. I did indeed promise to be faithful to the teachings of the church when I was ordained 45 years ago. I also support faithful same-sex relationships and marriage and do not believe I am breaking my vows in doing… Read more »
Thanks David, It’s really helpful to have that viewpoint expounded. But can I ask your doctrinal grounds for asserting that ‘The Church of England believes in the development of doctrine. That means being open and allowing doctrine to faithfully develop in response to new questions and understandings facing each generation.’ If I’ve unwittingly signed up to upholding a CofE Doctrine of the Development of Doctrine in my ordination vows, I fear I might be in breach! ‘Proclaiming the faith afresh in each generation’ as we promise, really doesn’t seem to me to be the same thing – I’ve always understood it’s about… Read more »
We’ve already moved on from “permanent,” haven’t we?
You can only vow what you believe to be truthful, Bob, but sometimes you must admit that you were wrong, down the line. They were grievously wrong, to me. Perhaps best not to vow at all, as the Lord required.
Generally I call them conservative evangelicals.
I grow weary of this kind of character assassination.
I disagree with your assessment.
By presenting PLF as just a type of intercessionary prayer to be used in existing services, they are authorised under Canon B1. There is nothing in the wording of the prayers which suggests they are incompatible with Canon B1 – it’s probably why they are so anemic.
Canon B2 isn’t needed and calls for it to be invoked are purely political.
Justin Welby just made it political. The calculation on his part is breathtaking and in any other institution he would be asked to consider his position.
I think it’s much more parsimonious to assume that the CofE doesn’t have a decided view on sex or ethics, and probably hasn’t since we started putting Common Worship together. Bishops today are essentially politicians trying to hold together a theologically diverse Church without being able to simply slap the Prayer Book and say “whatever this says is what we think”. So it’s all a bit vague and it’s all a bit contradictory and it’s all a bit party politics because, yeah, it is. And the political parties will keep fighting each other in Synod and online, and any deeper… Read more »
Party politics is hardly new. Have you read Trollope’s Barchester novels?
I wish Colin Coward wouldn’t be dismissive of the ‘Church of England’ when he means the bishops of the CofE; or the secretariat of the CofE or the General Synod of the CofE. With close on 30 years in Orders I know that the majority of the CofE are kind, loving and loveable people. They struggle to live up to the impossible ideal of Christ’s teachings as we all do but somehow do their best, and in the process of doing so enhance the Body of Christ. I think most of the bishops are inept and shouldn’t be given the… Read more »
I hope for the sake of their own mental health that the human beings who are trying to fulfil the impossible job of being Anglican bishops (I know a couple of them over there in England, and I’m friends with several of them here in Canada) never read the comments on TA.
Part of the problem is that they live in echo chambers. They glibly announced that we were going for 10,000 new house churches a while back. The numbers are going down. They equivocate on safeguarding. They talk about radical inclusion for LGBTQI+ people but don’t deliver. They have indoor and outdoor staff whilst the numbers using food banks rises. They amalgamate parishes but don’t reduce their own number. They attend a secret dining club called ‘Nobody’s Friends’. They concede that clergy morale is low but don’t have a clue how to change that. They say they want to increase vocations… Read more »
I wish you would spell out who the pronoun ‘they’ refers to in each case above, as (knowing some of the details about the cases you mention) it’s clear to me that it’s talking about a different group of people almost every time. I find it curious that most modern Anglicans continue to assert that bishops are essential for the being (not just the well-being) of the Church, but the vast majority of comments about bishops on Thinking Anglicans have been overwhelmingly negative for as long as I have been visiting this site (which must be more than a decade… Read more »
I found Colin’s article surprisingly moving (or I was surprised at something, perhaps how much I agreed). On one level it’s nothing new, but on another it’s refreshing to hear someone else say things like “At the moment we do not have a forum in which to explore the deepest truths and transformations that are taking place around the planet.” And that we must confront the deep theological differences and yet the church has become so good at avoiding addressing scandal after scandal. To stretch a metaphor I feel like the church has been kicking issues into the long grass,… Read more »
I just wonder what would have happened had Jeffrey John not been hounded to withdraw as Bishop of Reading designate. Had the Church of England just gently accepted same sex relationships with the minimum of fuss as it did remarriage after divorce, it would be so much calmer today.
The difference, I think, is what is sometimes called “the ick factor”. Most hetero- males have no trouble imagining requiring a divorce in order to marry a more compatible mate. But seeing themselves involved in a physical sexual relationship with another man is different–especially for those who matured before about 1970, I’d say, or who were educated in a male-dominated culture, such as boarding school.
‘Most hetero- males have no trouble imagining requiring a divorce in order to marry a more compatible mate.’ Well, maybe not if they invest authority in the words of Jesus, e.g. Mk Ch 10. And if they invest (or better, recognise) authority in the words of Jesus denouncing porneia (Mk Ch 7), this may be a more powerful influence shaping their rejection of same sex sexual activity, than simple physical repulsion.
And here we get into the discussion of exactly what Jesus meant in those moments. First of all, he certainly didn’t use the word “porneia”, because he didn’t speak a word of Greek. He spoke Aramaic. And then we get into whether those who translated the Gospels from Aramaic to Greek (and who did so, at the earliest, some 70 years after Jesus’ time) did so properly, with a total understanding of the Aramaic words he used.
Even with modern scholarship we struggle with Biblical translation so the chance is remote that the translation from Aramaic to Greek was entirely accurate. I think you have made an important point.
And it’s interesting how the sentences about the Pharisees being hypocrites because they set aside the laws of God to stick to their human traditions virtually never see the light of day….
Well, there is another perspective on the past beyond words, beyond ‘verbum’ as it were. We have photographic evidence of the horror of antisemitic genocide, the squalor of the 30s depression, the carnage of of WWI and American civil war trenches. etc., etc. Conservative Christians are amongst those groups who reconstruct the past by lifting out bible data and creating this kind of idealized version of the past. The naive protestant idealism of some forms of evangelicalism and catholic dogmatism are a prime examples. If by some ‘miracle’, if by some back to the future ‘DeLorean’ in a shopping Centre… Read more »
I believe I’m right in saying that most scholars believe there’s no evidence of an Aramaic original for any of the gospels. You appear to believe that gospels were written in Aramaic, existed in that language for a decade or two, and then were translated into Greek about 100 AD. On what evidence do you base this assertion?
I did not mean that there was ever a written Aramaic version of the Gospel stories. They were undoubtedly communicated orally for at least the first decade, and then some literate hearer began taking notes. Those notes were passed on to others and eventually translated to first century Greek (which is no more like modern Greek than the earliest forms of English are like our modern tongue).
I wrote a piece on this earlier in the year, focused on what people choose to mean by ‘fornication’. It may be useful. https://shared-conversations.com/2024/02/22/questions-of-fornication/