The Church Times reports: Opponents and supporters of prayers for same-sex couples lobby bishops
TWO Church of England pressure groups wrote to the House of Bishops before its meeting this week to express hopes and expectations about the next steps in the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process.
The groups–Together for the Church of England, which campaigns for wider provision for LGBTQ people in the Church, and the Alliance, which represents opponents of the proposed blessings of same-sex couples–wrote the letters at the invitation of the House of Bishops, before their meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday this week…
The full texts of these letters are linked below.
The Alliance Letter 8 – October 24
Together for the Church of England Letter to House of Bishops (October 2024)
I am so bored with all this nonsense. We know aunty CofE is bound to solemnize same sex relationships before too long. Stop the playground squabbling and just get on with it. We had the same fight over the abolition of slavery.
The alternative is the abolition of the CofE
That would be a tragedy.
Perhaps a return to tolerance and diversity under one umbrella?
Yes, the bishops at the time didn’t quite grasp the meaning of scripture when Jesus said, ‘I have come to set the captives free’. Groundhog Day indeed.
Re:Groundhog Day (link), I highly recommend it for fellow commentators here. In an interview the producer Harold Ramis ( who was Jewish) said that some Hasidic Jews told him, “This is Talmud”. lol.
https://rabbidunner.com/groundhog-day-and-the-jewish-experience/
Wearing the same clothes everyday for 40 years? The Jewish experience clearly has something to teach us.
Woke this a.m., checked the site, saw this comment, and thought, yep I’m still in Punxsutawney ( a metaphor for TA) it looks like Groundhog Day all over again. lol. lol.
“The Alliance continues to grow numerically with 2360 clergy whose churches currently
represent 42% of the Church of England’s average Sunday attendance and 53% of all under
eighteen-year-olds within the Church of England.”
This sounds like a reworking of the Daily Mail’s notorious ‘Will of the People’ – less in-your-face, but quasi-Stalinist nonetheless.
The church will one day finally agree that it doesn’t matter .They will dither for a while longer and then just have to admit same sex relationships are OK. Then they’ll get over it . And then devote more energy in to prayers.
I’m not sure of the point you’re making here.
The alliance are saying “we are not a small minority group nor old people who will die out.. so please take us seriously”
Is it that you don’t believe they have that many clergy (and churches) – and are saying they’re exaggerating. Or do you feel they’re saying “everyone must agree with us because we are so large”.
Because I don’t think they are trying to get everyone to agree.. just to try and work “together”
(I use quotes on ‘together’, because there is clearly a wide variety of possible meanings….)
“we are not a small minority group nor old people who will die out.. so please take us seriously”. I can’t find anything in the Gospels about taking a group seriously simply because it’s large or relatively youthful. On the contrary, a characteristic of Jesus’ ministry was his concern for the littlest and the least. The bishops are well aware (too aware, some would say) of the financial and numerical strength of conservatives. Reminding them of it was crudely unsubtle to say the least. To take the ‘quasi-Stalinist’ analogy a little further. Will the next Alliance letter ask, with regard… Read more »
Yes, well said.
So your point is, their point deserves no more or less consideration based on numbers alone. I do agree the good theology should not be at the whim of numbers. But I feel in some sense it should matter for the context of working out unity. I do suspect the best way forward though is to come to a point of saying “well this is the conclusion, don’t expect it to change again for another e.g. 10 years, so if you can’t live with it – so be it” But that is at odds with the pastoral response of “but… Read more »
The point is the Alliance is big enough to support those who feel they no longer have a home on the C of E. As we have already seen people are leaving the C of E, but the Alliance at least provides a home for those who chose to remain. I guess they won’t be thanked for that.
The point being made here and elsewhere is that The Alliance are claiming to represent and lead a larger group than they actually do. They should not be thanked for manipulating the numbers. See Nic Tall’s piece posted this morning on Via Media.
They are however very small compared to the population of England. We have no idea how many have left the church/never considered it because of all the hurt that has been caused both by this issue and by the church’s attitude towards women. It seems to me very unlikely that most of the population of England are suddenly going to find themselves in agreement with the conservative evangelical viewpoint, which makes the argument about size pretty irrelevant.
Would those people even attend church? The Methodists and URC aren’t exactly booming.
Also, consider how many left the church or never considered it because we have failed to strongly uphold a traditional Christian doctrine and sexuality ethic, so have gone to rapidly growing evangelical denominations like Vineyard or Elim instead.
I’m afraid I disagree with that. It’s back to doing theology by democracy, if we do that then everyone should be atheist/agnostic. I claim the wider population is not in church because they don’t believe Jesus is relevant to their lives nor exists(/nor is God). There are churches that have been openly pro-lgbt for a while but they are not full to bursting. In Northern Ireland the average appears to agree with ‘conservative’ stance on marriage; I don’t think there are stories of much different church growth/decline there? (I confess I may be wrong.. it may be interesting to see… Read more »
I’m afraid the argument of size is not irrelevant if we actually believe being in the same church (or denomination) means anything. Those outside the church may have different views – but if we used that as a yard stick the cofe would become some kind of secular aetheist religion. I take the views of those inside the church in general (and inside the cofe in the particular) with more weight – and so a large number – and a large number of theologically trained people who have given their lives to serve – I think should be taken seriously.… Read more »
Anglican Futures has an interesting take on the Alliance’s letter, linking it to the recent +Wambunya saga
Here is the link to Anglican Futures
https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/welby-and-wambunya-a-warning-for-the-alliance
I agree, it’s very interesting indeed.
Not sure what the link is other than upholding canon law, which the Archbishop has just breached. Will he be disciplined in the same way as +Wambunya?
On several occasions recently I have posted bemoaning the omission of disability from attempts to indicate the breadth of diversity in this or that. For once, I celebrate in solidarity with my sister and brother priests who are disabled that seemingly they are neither trendy nor ‘shiny’ enough for inclusion in….The Alliance (cue dramatic music). Seemingly there is no ‘orthodox disabled clergy group’. Hallelujah!!
Could you elaborate a little? I mean, disabled folks have their hurdles, many of them, but marriage isn’t among them. Or am I wrong?
I assume it was a tongue in cheek joke, that there isn’t a group called the ‘conservative evangelical group of disabled people’s who support it.
Ofcourse any possible members of such a group should be represented in the other groups, but I think that was what he was getting at.
Absolutely. If you look at their letter, there is a group specifically for orthodox women clergy and another for orthodox BAME/GMH clergy. These two constituencies are the most frequently used diversity measures, and disability is very frequently ignored. My joke has two serious ‘stings’ in so much as I find it ironic that disability is ignored in an alliance that trumpets itself as ‘the most diverse’ grouping, and my perception of many of the groupings of my fellow evangelicals these days is anything or anyone who isn’t ‘shiny’ is deliberately overlooked.
Anyone can join the Alliance. Just sign up on Alliancecofe.org.uk.
I am not an evangelical and so cannot wholly understand their perspective on this. However, as a rather long in the tooth member of Forward in Faith in a Society parish, I am quite confused by the Chair of the Catholic Group on General Synod signing this letter. Why – for him – will a code of practice not do where one recognises the sacramental orders of one’s ordinary but disagrees with his position on marriage when Traditional Catholics have accepted that they can, just about, cope ministering under extended episcopal care even if they don’t recognise the sacramental orders… Read more »
This is the eighth such letter to the Archbishops and Bishops by leaders of ‘The Alliance’. It repeats the claim that they lead and represent large and growing numbers of churches who oppose the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters in the church. What is never clear is where their numbers actually come from. Who are they counting? A conservative vicar leading a church of 200 does not add 201 to those opposing PLF. No churches are simply on one side or the other. All contain a mix of views. The expanding Inclusive Evangelical network includes many who belong… Read more »
But it’s still significant that they speak for clergy leading churches that make up such a massive chunk of the CoE. Especially if some bishops believe the general synod numbers are an inflation of the numbers on the ground. There has been a fair amount of communication & consultation between the Alliance leadership and the 2360 clergy who have each individually signed up to the Alliance. Specifically, there have been two rounds now of conversations with clergy in each diocese individually where they shared their aims with us and heard comments and answered our questions at length. So it’s at… Read more »
How can progressive views of human sexuality be cruel and dangerous? There’s ample evidence that labelling same sex relationships ‘sinful’ is both cruel and dangerous – as witness those who have tragically taken their lives because of it.
Is that question asked from a genuine place of not understanding why we think that? This is at the absolute heart of the division in the church at the moment. The progressives think we are homophobic bigots hurting and dehumanising same-sex attracted people. And we think the progressives are making it harder for people to follow Jesus and be saved. The church has certainly been deeply homophobic in the past and still is in lots of ways. I know that some have felt driven to despair or even suicide over Christian disapproval of same-sex relationships. It’s tragic that anyone should… Read more »
It’s not about sex, it’s about relationships. If marriage is not for the likes of LGBTQ people then they only have life long isolation. No relationships, no tenderness, no companionship from a life long partner.
It is not the teaching of Jesus to reduce our queerly-made Image of God to “sex” (having it OR not having it!).
The presumption that (sacramentally-discriminatory) evangelicals can DEFINE what “following Jesus” is, nevermind who is “saved”??? I just can’t…
Didn’t Jesus also say that what is impossible for man (ie earning or finding salvation) is possible for God? It isn’t just evangelicals who try to define what ‘following Jesus’ means – Christian social activist groups, particularly liberal ones who campaign for social, economic or other equality do it as well!
Its far, far too easy to think ‘our’ view’ is aligned with God and Jesus, regardless of our particular ‘ism’. We need to guard against it like hawks.
And yet the Alliance ignores Galatians 6:2 about sharing burdens IE homosexual couples sharing the burden of celibacy they seek to place on gay and lesbian couples. It all feels as though the Bible is being read selectively which is where the impression of homophobia comes from I think.
It’s not about the sex, Andrew. It’s saying to a gay teen that s/he’ll never grow old with someone, never get to cuddle their loved one, won’t have someone to care for them when they’re ill, won’t have children. It’s asking them to see the desire for a relationship that you take for granted as a desire for something sinful, a scab never to be picked. It is profoundly disabling and alienating.
Yes, I did ask the question from a genuine position of not understanding – and I’m a former conservative evangelical. In my con eva days I might think progressives were misguided re same sex relationships, but it never occurred to me to think their teaching ‘cruel and dangerous’. That is a relatively new development in the con eva world. And no, I don’t think all conservatives are ‘homophobic bigots hurting and dehumanising same-sex attracted people’ – I have often argued on TA that we should respect people’s honest beliefs without making assumptions about their motives, or hurling insults at them.… Read more »
”Jesus’ teaching does restrict sex, but it is always good for us. It helps us realise sex is less crucial than we have been told.” Jesus’ teaching on sex is purely extrapolation of a few verses that aren’t primarily about sex. Very little to go on. Jesus’ teaching about self righteousness was far clearer and The Alliance seem content to ignore it completely. I don’t know who has told us that sex is crucial. What’s observable is that human beings are very varied when it comes to the matter of sex. For some, it’s of little importance and even within… Read more »
You sound more like a member of the Plymouth Brethren than an Anglican….
“We just think Jesus does full inclusion more beautifully than you realise.” Oh, please, Andrew. Pass the sick bag.
To your point; it’s a common clerical conceit to think the faithful believe as we believe. I once wrote a piece against assisted dying for my traditional AC parish. I soon discovered that a significant minority fundamentally disagreed with me.
That’s why I emphasised that we have taught clearly on this for years.
Wow….. I know my NT fairly well, but what comes to my mind is not Our Lord banging on about sexual relationships all the time . You guys are obsessed with them.
I thought God made man in his own image, not the other way round …. And I’m sure Jesus does do full inclusion beautifully, but I wonder who it is that does not understand in which way……
The quoted post is indeed nausea inducing, but it also demonstrates how far these ‘traditionalists’ have deviated from the old way, which was basically: homosexuals are excommunicates, but we don’t ask, and they don’t tell. Now it’s all nicey-nicey, ‘of course none of us oppose the full inclusion of any LGBTQ+ person’ but the way we love them is to work towards converting them to heterosexuality, or failing that, celibacy.
when was the “old way” – “ homosexuals are excommunicates” I recall in 2004 hearing conservatives teach that celibacy was the way for out LGBT (as it was then) brothers and sisters in Christ. I know it was 2004 because that was when I joined an Anglican Evangelical church In 1999 I was part of a Pentecostal church and had also heard the “be celibate” call. Before that I went to no church. However given the criticism of ‘gay conversion’ goes back decades – that does imply the idea of “try to stop doing gay sex, either by becoming heterosexual or… Read more »
Wow! That is a seriously optimistic to the point of naive set of assertions right there. I doubt that all of the clergy listed (assuming they are incumbents, which many will not be) will have a clear understanding of all of the views of everyone in their congregation. Even if a few churches are highly refined in traditional conservative views, a great deal will not be. This is particularly true among younger people, who are significantly more affirming of LGBTQIA+ than older generations. I would encourage you to reflect on some of the hubris within your own statement, it’s this… Read more »
You’re right that I’m not motivated by concern that I might be required to use the prayers. You’re wrong that I’m seeking to control progressive churches’ teaching. I’m motivated by NT commands for Christians to separate from false teaching that makes it harder for people to know the real Jesus and follow him. The command to separate is given in order that we can better love the world – that no one be confused by our association with a false teaching into thinking that it is the way of Jesus. It’s one thing to be in a denomination where some… Read more »
I think the optimism is true but likely not as true as you suggest. I would guesstimate on average between 50 to 75% of congregations that have a “conservative leadership” who signed up to the Alliance will support them. Probably closer to the 75%, the number may be lower if e.g curates have signed up who don’t agree with their vicar. Vicars are likely not that naive of their church and if they felt it was close to 50/50 or less then they may have considered moving and or a much more vague compromise. (As an example, I had assumed… Read more »
For the record how many churches and clergy are currently signed up for Together for the Church of England? A small minority I would imagine.
Adrian. Thanks for asking, Churches do not sign up. Individuals do – ordained or lay. A group of convenors steer it. We have a website with resources and blogs. There are monthly podcasts. Our private Facebook group requires people to affirm they are evangelicals and to their commitment to open exploration of a theology of accepting same sex marriage/blessings from an evangelical Christian perspective’, and to agree to some basic ground rules for engagement together. The group began in early September 23. We have now reached just under 2000 members. It includes a wonderfully wide variety of people, stories, ministry… Read more »
Sorry Adrian, this was a response to your question about ie – appeared in the wrong place.
Thanks for your reply.
Andrew. Thank you for engaging, But the more you write here the clearer it is that the ‘more beautiful inclusion’ you speak of is based on severe exclusion. The welcome is only for those who agree with you. The rest of us are false teachers and to be separated from, along with the rest of ‘the world’.
Your claim that almost 100% of your congregation are safely included on these terms is as wildly improbable as it is worrying. There are aspiring cult leaders out there who would pay good money to know your secret.
The NT is clear that no sexual sin should make us separate from those in ‘the world’. When it’s in the church it’s entirely different. See, for example, 1 Cor 5. To separate from the world because of sin is anti-Jesus. To not separate from unrepentant sin in the church is anti-Jesus. Not expecting you to agree with that (you may feel it sound cultish). But just thought I’d clarify that it’s not correct to think that our attitude to false teaching bishops is reflected in our attitude to our neighbours who don’t believe what we believe. In other words,… Read more »
If you think that, shouldn’t the Church of England, which now blesses same sex relationships, seek to separate themselves from those who, in the eyes of the majority, falsely teach that same sex relationships are sinful? As I keep saying, much of the Alliance position is inconsistent if examined carefully.
Well, yeah, if the two following things are true.
1) If they (like me) believe that Scripture teaches there’s a category of false teaching which leads people away from Jesus and should be separated from, and, 2) they think the traditional understanding if Scripture does that, then for sure they should separate from us.
I think some do want to do that (by us leaving or being forced out) but I’m no expert on what percentage of liberals would join me in believing premise 1.
That’s interesting, how many churches/clergy are in there in the in Inclusive Evangelical Network.
There have been hints, now I think confirmed, that the bishops’ proposal is dioceses banding together in regions so that traditionally-minded (I refuse to use the word orthodox incorrectly) can offer oversight to those in the region who need it. It’s a practical suggestion which appears to meet all the publicly asserted needs of the Alliance yet, nonetheless, they have rejected it, but without giving reasons. From that I infer that LLF/PLF is being used as a stalking horse to try to obtain political objectives for a separate province although it appears unnecessary. I hope the bishops stand their ground.
(a) It doesn’t meet the (very minimal) set of needs repeatedly outlined in CEEC’s documents;
(b) What political objectives do you imagine are being sought?
It’s not that evangelicals escape Anglo-Catholics (or vice-versa). The goal is for the new province to be as wide as the Church of England – just with an unchanged doctrine of marriage.
I don’t see why it isn’t meeting the minimal requirements?
They get to have a neighbouring bishop who “agrees the doctrine of marriage should be unchanged”
The Alliance again asserts that Canon B2 ensures a two thirds majority is gained as a prerequisite for any alteration or departure from current agreed doctrine.It does the very oppositte and forbids ANY change in liturgy which is indicative of a departure from doctrine. It doesn’t matter if it was unanimous, it canot change the doctrine.
Nothing in the liturgy can be indicative of any change in doctrine.
The C of E’s liturgy is its theology according to Bishop Snow, so changing liturgy can certainly be indicative of change in doctrine,
But doesn’t B2 expressly state that no change in liturgy may be indicative of a change in doctrine.
I think that depends how you read it. “any form of service or amendment thereof approved by the General Synod under this paragraph shall be such as in the opinion of the General Synod is neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.” That could be read to mean – – that any order of service agreed to – is by definition – something that “in the opinion of the General Synod ..is not contradictory to doctrine… ” OR it could be read to mean – that if… Read more »
“The Alliance continues to grow numerically with… [yada-yada-yada]”
AS IF those numbers mean a drop in the bucket, compared to the ever-increasing numbers of unchurched (de-churched) for whom the CofE’s homophobia (e.g., discrimination in sacraments) is such a significant factor!
According to the podcast Justin Welby said the C of E is growing.
But, to quote Mesdames Keeler and Rice-Davies, he would say that, wouldn’t he?
But to look at actual numbers — he’s right…. But to look at numbers for a longer time frame e.g. back to 2019 it’s shrinking. But he only claimed a few years so for the limited claim, it’s right… Does it signify part of a change in trend, or does it signify a minor blip post-Covid. Time will tell. As for the actual point of J-C-F I seriously doubt that position on homosexuality is a dominant factor in church growth/decline. It can’t help the CofE position I agree – but given that other churches who have different views aren’t in… Read more »
Rome wasn’t built in a day. De-homo/trans-hating the CofE won’t instantly turn around the numbers (anymore than it has in TEC—Yes, my parish is growing, w/ significant #s of new LGBTQ members). But it IS a prerequisite! The sad reality, is that The World cannot easily tell apart those who worship homo-hating White Jebus, and those who follow/eat All-Inclusive Loving Jesus of Nazareth. Those of us in the latter, the Body of Christ, still face blow-back, or friendly fire, from that LGBTQ-affirming part of The World, ever-growing, that could join with us. Is the J-word (Jesus) as morally compromised as… Read more »