Bishop John Inge has written an open letter to the Diocese, setting out why he believes that the celebration and honouring of monogamous, faithful same-sex relationships by the Church of England would be consonant with the scriptural witness.
The letter begins:
Dear Friends in Christ,
In our recent letter to the clergy of the Diocese of Worcester, the Bishop of Dudley and I wrote that we think the time has come for the Church of England to celebrate and honour monogamous, faithful same-sex relationships. We added that we believe this to be consonant with the scriptural witness but did not set out our reasoning. We merely commended the Bishop of Oxford’s booklet, Living together in Love and Faith.[i] I feel I should summarise my own thinking on the subject and shall attempt to do so here.
The full text of his letter can be read here.
Standard “theological fancy-footwork” (Paul was talking about abuse; Jesus never mentioned same-sex relationships) but whatever works for him.
While securing equal rights for all must be the priority, unless the church overthrows the authoritarian demand that her members “live [their] life under the scriptures,” (what a telling phrase!) all of this will happen again to someone else. “The Bible never explains why same-sex sexual activity is condemned”: no, your grace, which is precisely why might can’t be allowed to dictate right.
I am grateful to Bishop John for speaking out with honesty (and calling for others to do the same, which I hope they will shortly). And I think the opening paragraphs of his letter are really good and very well-focussed. Personally, I cannot agree that the Bible authors were only condemning abusive, oppressive, exploitative relationships, rather than man-man sex in principle. That seems to me to push the argument beyond what I believe the Bible authors and religious communities actually believed: that two men engaging in sex was just plain wrong. I think that Bishop John feels the need to… Read more »
Setting aside my above (mild) snark, I’d also like to sincerely thank +John: disagree as I do with his hermeneutic, it took courage to write that, courage I hope to see from many more of his colleagues on the English bishops’ bench.
Regarding whether we should “save” the Bible, +John mentions Richard Dawkins: how much stronger would the church be in such debates if it could say, plainly, the the biblical documents are of their time and can be as wrong as any other text penned by us fallible humans?
Precisely James.
Admission of biblical fallibility makes the core gospel message *more* credible, not *less* credible.
Are you trying to abolish evangelicalism in the Church of England? They won’t go quietly.
Certainly not, since I wouldn’t dream of telling evangelicals what to believe (and they’d rightly ignore me if I did). As I’ve frequently said on here, I admire much about evangelicalism, and the church benefits greatly from their perspective and work.
My stating the classic liberal position no more seeks to abolish evangelicalism than promoting evangelicalism seeks to abolish liberalism or Anglo-Catholicism. In a broad church there’s surely room for much theological diversity?
A “text penned by us fallible humans” is hardly a description many CofE evangelicals would accept since they believe in “God’s Word Written”. Comparing Scripture to “any other text” is effectively chopping off the branch upon which evangelicals sit. I agree it would be more intellectually honest if the Church stated that the foundations of evangelicalism are discredited and are nonsense. I don’t think nonsense should be an acceptable part of “theological diversity”.
But evangelicals aren’t being asked to accept it, and I’d be the first to oppose any such requirement as a violation of their religious freedom.
Likewise, in a broad church, I’d hope to see a mainstay of liberal theology since the 19th century shown the same toleration.
In your proposal to “save” the bible you suggest the Church defines scripture as being a ‘fallible text” written by humans. This would be to impose an intolerant view upon evangelicals, making their position incompatible with Anglican belief. They could then perhaps move to a denomination which believes God wrote the bible, and where He holds a conservative view about sexuality. Many denominations allow people “religious freedom” to spout fundamentalist nonsense. Perhaps Anglicanism should not be one of them.
To clarify, I’m not proposing that Anglican provinces officially define scripture in any particular way, let alone that people be obliged to voice their agreement with such a definition: just the opposite, their members should be free to express a diversity of views on the matter.
Just because someone states a view that evangelicals would oppose doesn’t mean that someone is trying to abolish them.
I disagree with policies and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of the Latter-Day Saints (commonly called “Mormon”). That doen’t mean I want to see them abolished or their rights to believe as they wish diminished in any way.
It is so good that +John, Bishop of Worcester, joins other Church of England bishops in a bid to scuttle the ‘Sola Scriptura’ theological stance of the mis-named ‘evangelical’ branch of the Church of England. If the continuing work of the Holy Spirit is to be honoured and recognised by ‘Mother Church’ in the U.K., then the hermeneutic must reflect that reality. As Blessed Pope John affirmed at Vatican II, we need to overcome the static theology of former theologians, in order to listen to – and really reflect upon ‘what The Spirit is saying to The Church’ in our… Read more »
I am grateful to Bishop John. He makes the important points that on a literal reading of the Bible neither the ordination of women not remarriage after divorce could be permitted. In both cases, present doctrine relies on understanding the Bible as a whole rather than going verse by verse.
We need to be careful here Kate and read Bishop John’s words carefully. He does not make the point that a literal reading of the Bible would render women’s ordination or remarriage after divorce impermissible. He actually says a literal reading of St Paul would make such things difficult.
Conceded
Also, I believe some Biblical scholars argue that St. Paul did not write all the letters attributed to him.
One explanation as to how the same person could state that in Christ there is no slave or free or Jew or Greek (non-Jew) or male or female and then in a different letter state that women should shut up in church and let the menfolk do all the thinking is that the two letters were not written by the same person.
Either that, or St. Paul was quite capable of holding contradictory thoughts, just like the rest of us..
Wonderful straw man argument, if anyone thinks being ordained the same as being saved they are neither thinking nor Anglican!
There have been two rebuttals published:
https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/2023/01/12/a-critical-examination-of-the-bishop-of-worcesters-arguments-for-the-church-blessing-same-sex-marriages/
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/an-open-letter-to-john-inge-bishop-of-worcester-on-sexuality-and-marriage/
Both are like wading through treacle.
I have to agree, and sadly, what hits me with both is the sheer lack of tolerance, understanding and basic compassion that they express. Life is, apparently a law book which we have to conform to and obey, “or else”….. and, somewhere Paul did say that the letter of the law kills. As an enforcement officer for the DVLA, I had a certain degree of discretion in making decisions on some of my cases. The most widely disliked member of our staff was the ‘rule book Harry’ who saw everything in black and white, and made some appalling decisions which… Read more »
Let’s face it. The battle lines are probably drawn, and whatever the bishops come up with in February the different factions will slog it out in Synod.