Updated Saturday and Tuesday
Church of England press release
As part of the church-wide engagement with the Living in Love and Faith resources, everyone who took part was invited to share their learning, insights and reflections. Over 6,000 responses were received, through questionnaires, focus groups, creative responses and a variety of other forms. These responses have been gathered into a report, Listening with Love and Faith. This is accompanied by a more detailed technical report and a reflective essay entitled, Friendship and the Body of Christ. These and the LLF resources will support the bishops in their ongoing discernment process as they seek to discern what they believe God is saying to the Church of England today.
Updates
Three articles that provide some context for these documents:
A shockingly small percentage of people who responded were under 44 – just 17%… and only 2% of responses were from people under the age of 24.
83% of responses were from people over the age of 45.
In a sense, the responses represented the views of the Church’s passing congregations and not its future ones.
Older people can be and often are in my experience much more tolerant and accepting of diversity than younger people (that doesn’t alter my opinion that the whole LLF exercise is wind and piss).
The evidence, not least by LGBT sponsored social surveys, is that the younger generation are much less likely to have issues with sexuality and diversity actually. And that they are baffled by conservative religion on this issue.
I think the age profile of the responders shows that there won’t *be* any future congregations!
I’ve worked with teenagers for 25 years as a teacher and later as a nurse (not to mention bringing up 3 of my own). My experience is that attitudes have become more and more accepting of LGBT. In recent years most young people are actively protective of LGBT peers – their friends – and get really angry if anyone has a go at them. They can’t understand what the problem is.
A very small number responded indeed. I disagree with the comment “the church’s passing congregations”. These are often the very people who give generously of their time, money and gifts to sustain the church today. Without their contribution there often would be no Church of England presence in every parish.
The document ‘Friendship and the Body of Christ’ – while not proposing actual changes to doctrine and liturgy – is, if read peacefully and prayerfully, actually a moving reflection on friendship in the context of diversity and differing views. I find it touching and tender, and particularly like these parts: The challenge “to look for Christ in one other. It involves actively resisting the temptation to look for my own projection of Christ in the other – rather than seeking the living Christ himself in people who may be very different from us.” I think that is a profound challenge.… Read more »
I agree with you Susannah. I continue to think, subject apart, that LLF has been offering a quite unique approach to theological reflection and discernment in the CofE. But of course the subject itself is one the church continues to be painfully divided over. I note that at a personal, local level, I have been encouraged to be invited to churches who, having done the course, are now wanting to explore in more depth how to read the bible and discern what it means for them. So I want somewhere to say thank you to a significant number of people… Read more »
David and Susannah, I think that seeking to stay in fellowship, as far as possible, with people with very different views and love and listen across divisions is important. But I believe the LLF approach falls sadly short in terms of false equivalence: the notion that human dignity is little altered if, in practice, some people are debarred from the joys and opportunities that others have simply because of a category they belong to and indeed are at fault if too impatient to be treated not quite as unequally, or find it difficult sometimes to keep listening repeatedly to rationales… Read more »
Savi, I think the ‘stand off’ – which is realpolitik and can’t just be wished away – is because two main opposing views are both held, in good conscience and with sincerity of faith, supported by coherent understandings of scripture. I have a lot of sympathy with your reference to equivalence, given the status quo, which sees straight couples fine, and LGBT people theologically marginalised, hurt, and vilified. The cost does not seem equivalent on either side. That said: what would you propose the bishops, General Synod, LLF, and individual parishes do, to politically accomplish an outcome that makes acceptance… Read more »
“For the record, I believe the conservative views are harmful to people…”
Removing that harm is the priority. Leaving the decision of harm to individual priests is clericalism which cannot be justified.
Three questions, if I may. Firstly, is it simply the holding by an individual of conservative views that you believe to be harmful? (That is, in terms of the traditional formula, thought, word and deed, and things we have left undone, we are talking abut thoughts alone.) Secondly, if so, could you explain exactly how the simple holding of such a view (as opposed to words and deeds) causes harm, and to whom? And thirdly, do I presume that when you say “removing that harm”, you are advocating removing those people who hold those views from the Church?
It’s the repression of people’s sexual orientation or gender identity which is harmful. Belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is fine. Expression of the view is fine upto the point at which the intention is to suppress people’s sexual orientation – and let’s be honest the purpose of teaching is to have an effect so teaching that is effectively a form of conversion therapy. It might lie at the weaker end of the scale, but it is still conversion therapy because the intent of teaching is to modify behaviour. Conversion therapy ought to be criminal and… Read more »
A splendid effort to have a particular set of views literally declared “crimethink”. But the logical sequence is too much of a stretch. The views we’re talking about here are that certain sexual acts are sinful. That isn’t the same as suggesting that sexual orientations are sinful, so the sequence breaks at that point. I’m sure that many people expressing the view that certain acts are sinful do so in order to encourage people not to carry out sinful acts, a principle which, broadly speaking, one assumes people accept, the issue being, of course, precisely what those sinful acts are.… Read more »
You asked for an alternative.
Extend team ministry to cover all parishes. Have two types of priests: those who celebrate weddings and those who don’t. Those who do should celebrate all weddings – ensure there is at least one of that type of priest in the team.
Susannah, I have long sought a way forward based on respect for conscience, for those who are non-affirming as well as affirming. But the Living in Love and Faith emphasis on mutual listening will not necessarily lead to any change. For instance, after the Pilling report, then the Shared Conversations which followed, which both highlighted the diversity of theological views, the bishops’ initial decision was that they had no intention to budge an inch by allowing even a single parish to celebrate marriages of same-gender couples or accept the ministry of a legally married gay or lesbian priest. The LLF… Read more »
At what point does the Royal Family worry about the optics of an archbishop who doesn’t openly support same sex marriage leading coronations or royal weddings?
Interesting point, though I suspect they may be reluctant to interfere too obviously. The issue may become more acute if someone ‘important’ in the Royal Family or its immediate circle is not eligible for marriage, at which point I suspect senior clergy themselves might be embarrassed into budging.
I don’t think the Supreme Governor of the Church of England will worry about having an archbishop who keeps to the doctrine of the Church of England. Unless the coronation oath is changed the next monarch will undertake to “maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England”. The established nature of the C of E keeps monarch and clergy on the same page.
Stephen/Savi
The Firm ruthlessly protects the interests of the Firm. If the Church of England became an impediment I am certain they would intervene. Charles and William are likely anyway to have a different relationship with the Church of England than the present Queen.
Well your final words are very pertinent, Savi: “unlikely to be enforceable”. The present status quo (gay and lesbian people must remain celibate) is pastorally unsustainable. That just won’t hold anymore, when priests and PCCs and local church communities in conscience can no longer take that line to LGBT people in their local communities, and those coming to church, and those with friends and family who are LGBT. Therefore… If change does not come from the top, I believe it will come from the grassroots upwards, with growing numbers of church communities and PCCs simply defying the ‘status quo’ out… Read more »
“Savi, I think the ‘stand off’ – which is realpolitik and can’t just be wished away – is because two main opposing views are both held, in good conscience and with sincerity of faith, supported by coherent understandings of scripture.” I think where you and I differ, Susannah, is that I don’t believe those opposed to a full life in the church for LGBT+ people are acting “in good conscience and with sincerity of faith, supported by coherent understandings of scripture.” I think they are reading into scripture their own deeply held, deeply discriminatory beliefs, just as some two centuries… Read more »
My view, Pat, is that the bible authors do not endorse man-man sex. I suspect it was offence to their religious communities and concepts of holiness. I believe, to those contemporary authors, where acceptable sex was framed only between a man and a woman, inside marriage, sex between men was not okay. I say that as someone who is socially liberal, and believes the author’s views are provisional, fallible, and contextual to their own times and their religious community back then. But I don’t think the original authors are ‘reading into scripture’ but rather, writing scripture, promoting holiness, upholding a… Read more »
“Therefore, if fellow-Christians sincerely believe that the Bible is the Word of God, infallible on subjects it sets out, and for all time… and if those fellow Christians deeply remain loyal to God on the basis of that understanding… then I believe we need to ‘see through’ to their sincerity (even if we sincerely disagree) and not suggest it’s all about homophobia and vindictive discrimination. It’s arguably about fidelity to God, as they understand God’s revelation.” I find it fascinating that they only view the Bible as infallible on the things where they agree with it. Know any evangelicals who… Read more »
Someone might sincerely believe that Christians need not follow all aspects of Old Testament law, which after all is repeatedly emphasised in the New Testament, but that the latter rules out same-sex relationship. I do not agree but this does not mean they are all simply picking and choosing to suit themselves.
Pat, I thoroughly agree. The evidence is that in terms of Scripture most conservatives don’t (openly) support male headship. Many turn a blind eye to divorce and none insist that bride and groom are virgins. The ‘traditional’ Biblical marriage they support is actually a carefully curated pick’n’mix.
‘I think where you and I differ, Susannah, is that I don’t believe those opposed to a full life in the church for LGBT+ people are acting “in good conscience and with sincerity of faith, supported by coherent understandings of scripture.”’ I was one of those people. I’m sure it’s true that I read some of my own beliefs into scripture, but I’m also sure that my beliefs were held in good conscience and with sincerity of faith. I’m also sure that the shoe is on the other foot. You’ll have beliefs of your own that you read into scripture,… Read more »
I am struggling to choose between two pieces of wisdom from Sir Humphrey Appleby:
“Minister, we don’t measure our success by results but by activity and the activity is considerable and productive.”
“Politicians like to panic, they need activity. It’s their substitute for achievement”
I had to google Sir Humphrey Appleby to find out who he was.
I once met his counterpart in real life and have never forgotten his put-down “I’m not going to bail you out of the consequences of your own incompetence”. Fortunately that barb was not directed to me!
I feel a MASH illustration coming on.
I have added links to two documents that discuss these publications. If I find more, I may add them too.
When LLF was launched I described it as a kicking the camera down the road exercise and my opinion has not changed. Professor Monkhouse describes it more pithily. I cannot see how the current cohort of bishops are not going to rise to Nic Tall’s challenge. They will be mealy mouthed and then call for further reflection and discernment. The young have already voted with their feet and many of us in late middle age ponder what keeps us from following their lead. Jesus’ ministry was almost exclusively with those considered to be the dregs of society in his time,… Read more »
I have read Listening with Love and Faith and the technical report that goes with it. They could do with a good proof reader. There are several examples of errors. For example: Of the technical report, page 26 Table 8 and Figure 13 have different values for the number of Gay / Lesbian people. On page 19, Table 2 is ranked in ‘responses per 10,000 ER’ but has Leicester (92.4) in the wrong place, it should be above Guildford (91.8). In Listening with Love and Faith there seems to be some confusion in the statistics between mean, median and mode. Assuming the graph in… Read more »
Have we an estimated cost of this whole LLF process?
Has it been value for money?
Up to February 2020, LLF had cost £600,000. I mentioned that on https://shared-conversations.com/2020/11/03/waiting-for-publication-the-week-before-living-in-love-and-faith/
Nic Tall’s summary is refreshingly positive about this survey, noting it is one of the largest consultation exercises the Church has ever held. 6400 respondents would be regarded as a very strong and reliable result by polling companies. The survey reveals – 1. Most want the acceptance of same-sex marriage or blessing of same-sex partnerships. 2. There is a strong desire across all Church traditions and perspectives for the Church to be more welcoming. 3. There is a willingness to acknowledge a diversity of views and to aim to keep the Church together. 4. The Church now looks to the bishops to give clear, bold leadership and bring us to… Read more »
This is not a poll, but, as I understand it, simply the responses of those who chose to respond. Polling companies do not work like that. No valid conclusions can be drawn about the views of the population, even if the population were to be defined. “of those who responded” needs to be added to the four statements.
I am not sure if you have read Nic Tall’s piece? He did not say it was a poll but explains why he makes the comparison.
David, I thought Nic’s summary was positive too. A tricky interface, however, is that I am very unsure that a change of doctrine would find the necessary 66% support in General Synod. So the next question in my mind is: what happens if the bishops collectively support (the most likely compromise) a ‘two integrities’ approach, accommodating both theologies… but General Synod will not support that change? Can the bishops overrule General Synod? I assume not. Failing that, can they circumvent Synod’s opposition by simply ‘allowing’ and ‘not disciplining’ church communities and their priests who adopt an affirming position over gay… Read more »
You get into tricky territory which the lawyers have looked at: the difference between commended liturgy and authorised liturgy. The former is easier to get through Synod (the House of Bishops can simply do it), but it offers less protection to clergy against equality challenges. Sorry this post is rather late!
“6400 respondents would be regarded as a very strong and reliable result by polling companies”
No, because they are not a random sample from the population.
But this is not a survey of the entire population.
they are not a random sample from the population Indeed they are not. As the report states, its “purpose was to enable the Church of England to listen to […] those who engaged with LLF resources”. So it was not intended to be, and was not, a survey of the church, or the population, as a whole: it was asking those people who had engaged with LLF what they thought of that engagement. As far as I can see, people were not specifically asked to give their opinions on the substantiative issues at all. There was the opportunity to offer… Read more »
I agree with same sex marriage but I also agree that drawing conclusions from these studies as to the intent of the majority is unsafe.
Hoiwever the 2022 YouGov survey using conventional polling methods showed considerable support for marriage of same-sex couples, while the British Social Attitudes survey has long shown that few British Anglicans adhere to the official Church of England line that same-sex physical relationships are always wrong.
Clearly the responses in the LLF report are self-selecting. We can’t ‘prove’ that the general attitudes of members of the Church of England are as affirming of gay sexuality as Nic Tall notes from the report. However, as you point out Savi, there is a deeper ‘populus’ of Anglicans across the country who almost certainly reflect the continuing drift towards acceptance of gay relationships in the UK. In fact the stats from them might be even stronger than in the LLF responses, where vested interests are more likely to respond. To ascertain the true level of support for gay sex… Read more »
Exactly, Kate. They may or may not be representative.
In all of this discussion about the propriety of Blessing Same-Sex Relationships, one wonders how this can be excluded when the Church is expected to bless inanimate objects – like battleships – but also live animals who bring joy into our lives. Why not bless the relationship of 2 members of our congregation who have been joined together in matrimony by the State? After all, if we proclaim The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ as ‘The God of Love’ – this surely means God will bless two people who have committed themselves to a lifelong loving partnership?… Read more »
“…the bishops seek to discern what they believe God is saying to the Church of England today.” This pre-supposes that God is attempting to communicate with the Church of England at all. Is He attempting to say one thing to the Church of England, while saying something quite different to the Church of Scotland, and something else again to the Church of Rome? Or does He simply not speak to anyone outside England at all, in which case perhaps He has one thing to say to the Methodists and another to the United Reformed? Perhaps He has one thing to… Read more »
Are you hinting that God might be ecumenically minded? In its fight for survival the CofE has largely dropped ecumenism as a priority.
In terms of the method used to discern what God is saying to the Church about welcoming LGBTQ people, and especially welcoming same sex marriage. Is it true to say that in those churches which have a broadly democratic process for discerning doctrine, and in which the laity have a clear voice, then same sex marriage is more likely to be accepted? I am thinking here of the URC, Methodists, Quakers, and a number of churches in the Anglican Communion. But those churches where discernment is less democratic, and more under the direct control of the Bishops, are more likely… Read more »
As a lay person I find it both shocking and irresponsible that this process – the results of which, I think were pretty obvious from the start is costing so much. I despair at the lack of accountability in the Church of England, and the lack of guts in bishops. Have they no thoughts they can offer in leadership – why on earth are they sitting on the fence saying nothing. By the time the LLF process has finished it will have cost the Church about £1million – based on the fact that up to February 2020 it was standing… Read more »
This LLF discussion is futile. Nothing anyone says here will make the slightest difference. The bishops, it is hoped, will make decisions based on what they read and hear, inspired by an evidently fickle holy spirit. As far as I can see the bishops are utterly terrified, literally petrified. They haven’t grasped the signs of the times (how the Master railed against disciples that failed to do that!), they haven’t grasped the power of social media, and the liberals are cowed by the threats of conservatives, especially those of Africa where most Anglicans are to be found. I would go… Read more »
There is something in what you say, Stanley. If 400 or 500 ‘inclusive’ churches were to network, set a date, and say that from that time on they would bless gay and lesbian marriages… that would be an awful lot of CDMs to issue. Not to mention, if 400 or 500 priests were disciplined and suspended, that would cause problematic media coverage, given the prevailing (inclusive) views in the country. They say ‘death concentrates the mind’ and perhaps such an action would concentrate bishops’ minds and get them off the fence, to sort out an accommodation for all parties. However,… Read more »
‘They will know you’re my disciples by your LOVE” (Jesus) – Not by your judgement!