press release 14 December: Living in Love and Faith (LLF) at the College of Bishops- December 2022
The full text of this is copied below the fold.
Church Times news report: Bishops tight-lipped on Church’s next steps for same-sex relationships
THE College and House of Bishops met for three days this week to draft the outcomes of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) discernment process, which are to be presented to the General Synod in 2023.
These outcomes, or recommendations, regarding same-sex relationships have not yet been made public, however. Once they are formally agreed in a final LLF meeting of the bishops in January, they will be put to the vote when the Synod next meets in London in February.
A press release issued at the conclusion of the meeting on Wednesday said: “Bishops spent time praying, reflecting, and discussing a spectrum of possible ways forward for the Church regarding same-sex relationship and marriage, and the theological basis for each. They will continue those discussions at a third meeting in mid-January at which it is anticipated that they will agree an ‘offering’ to the Church, giving a clear sense of direction.”
The Synod would then be invited to “indicate its views” on these. This might include a vote on whether the Church should change canon law to permit same-sex blessings or marriages…
Press release full text:
Under the banner, ‘Living in Love and Faith’ (LLF), the Church produced a suite of resources in November 2020 examining human identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage. These include a book, a video course, podcasts and videos of the lived experiences of a wide range of individuals. These have been available through a variety of channels across the Church including websites and local parishes.
Congregations across the country then took part in a process of learning using the resources, listening to one another and to God. A report of the gathered responses from this churchwide engagement was published in September 2022.
Since then the College of Bishops – which includes all the serving bishops of the Church of England – has held two three-day meetings, to draw on this wealth of resources and the many conversations that have been held to inform their discernment. A third meeting will take place next month in mid-January 2023.
The format of this week’s meeting mirrored that of the earlier November meeting: Working in group and plenary sessions, bishops shared their different views and discussed how the Church should approach questions relating to same-sex relationships and marriage. Other pastoral and theological concerns were also discussed relating to human identity and sexuality honouring the different deeply held convictions that exist among bishops and the wider Church.
Bishops spent time praying, reflecting and discussing a spectrum of possible ways forward for the Church regarding same-sex relationship and marriage, and the theological basis for each. They will continue those discussions at a third meeting in mid-January at which it is anticipated that they will agree an ‘offering’ to the Church, giving a clear sense of direction. The Church of England’s General Synod would then be invited to indicate its views at its meeting in February 2023.
Meanwhile the bishops identified a number of related areas to which they believe the Church needs to attend and discussed how best to offer guidance and support to the wider Church.
The College also discussed commitments that bishops will take and develop further in line with the direction of travel to be agreed by Synod in February 2023. It is anticipated that these commitments would be included in the bishops’ offering to Synod and the wider Church.
Commenting at the end of the meeting, the Bishop of London, Sarah Mullaly, who chairs the bishops’ Next Steps Group, said: “It was deeply heartening that Bishops continued to walk together united under Christ and celebrated our differences over the course of the last three days.
“They manifested a desire to find a way forward that will be good news to the Church and to wider society.”
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said: “The College continued to be engaged positively, robustly and frankly with three days of conversations held in a heartfelt commitment of mutual respect and understanding.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said: “As our second meeting closes and as we continue our journey on to the next stage in the LLF process, we continue to pray for continued guidance by the Holy Spirit through the scriptures about God’s intention for human life in all its glory and joy.”
Details of the three-day programme can be found below and a short video will be available on the Living in Love and Faith website shortly.
The next College of Bishops will be in mid-January where further discernment and decision-making will take place.
Programme of the College of Bishops, 12 December – 14 December 2022
Monday 12 December
Welcome and opening worship
Session One: Introduction
Session Two: Collective Leadership (1): What does it mean to lead the Church together as bishops?
Session Three: Agreements
Eucharist
Session Four: Theology Open Forum: Exploring our theological understanding of the doctrine of marriage in the context of same-sex relationships.
Compline
Tuesday 13 December
Morning Prayer and Eucharist
Session Five: Agreements
Session Six: Sexuality and Marriage: Where are we now?
Midday worship
Session Seven: Sexuality and Marriage: Ways forward
Session Eight: Sexuality and Marriage: Ways forward
Evening Prayer
Session Nine: Sexuality and Marriage: Unity and disagreement
Compline
Wednesday 14 December
Morning Prayer
Session Ten: Thinking about the Anglican Communion
Session Eleven: Where are we now?
Session Twelve: Commitments
Session Thirteen: Next steps
Eucharist
No mention of compulsory celibacy for Lesbian and Gay priests, something the College of Bishops could undo without reference to Synod since it was imposed without reference to Synod. Not surprising really because this unjust requirement was totally ignored by Living in Love and Faith.
I suggest the Bishops have ignored it precisely because it is solely their responsibility and they are unable to kick the can further down the road.
Perhaps an equivalence, in the Roman Catholic Church, David, might be the blind spot of its bishops requiring abstention from contraception on the part of her members. These are blind spots that become more and more embarrassing as they are ignored by many of the believers who, otherwise, are considered – even by the Church – to be outwardly faithful Christians. Unjust Law is always Bad Law, no matter how well-intentioned. One of the awful consequences of all of this is the degree of institutional hypocrisy involved. “Drop down, you heavens from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness”… Read more »
Thank you for your thoughtful response Father Ron. I think we can all agree that Christians are supposed to tell the truth? I think the crucial difference from your example is that Roman Catholic Laity aren’t required to give a formal undertaking to their Bishop not to use contraception? The Church of England has always taught that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and that sex should only happen between a married couple. But the Church of England teaches lots of things that some parishes ignore. For example the 39 articles explicitly denies transubstantiation. Before 2005… Read more »
I still agree with Ron. The Roman Catholic church expects that its members follow the teachings of the magisterium. If they are not doing that, it is expected that they confess their disobedience as a sin. In both churches there is dishonesty, but you are perhaps correct that the CofE requirement fosters emotional torture.
The blind spot in the Roman Catholic Church on married RC couples who use contraception — I believe polls show RC married couples use contraception at the same rate as the general population — is big enough to swallow the whole Church. I’d say that, in the real world, popes make infallible ex cathedra declarations — until they don’t. Will there ever be a pope who has the fortitude to say that, after further review, and after further discernment guided by the Holy Spirit, there’s no problem with contraception that blocks fertilization, after all? I think, according to some media… Read more »
So Humanae Vitae comes around again on TA. It is bad theology based on outdated Aristotelian biology. Decades ago, Roman Catholic theologian Bernard Lonergan SJ ( a solid Catholic neo-Thomist) pointed out the problems. In the attached link scroll down past page 8 to his letter. ( I’ve referenced this in previous debates on this matter here). With regard to the R.C. position on divorce, you are correct that it is largely a stance based on casuistry. The other thing I will point out is the problem with the application for annulment. My Catholic friends tell me that the process… Read more »
That’s based on a misreading of Bernard Lonergan. In fact, his book in 1943, “Finality, Love, and Marriage” (The Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, vol. 4 (University of Toronto Press, 1988), supports the position that contraception is an act against the purpose of sex.
His writings affirm the natural intelligibility of the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage, and the unity of these aspects with each other.
See:
https://lonergan.org/2018/11/25/lonergan-and-the-surd-of-contraception/
Actually, not a misreading of Lonergan but a controversy over the implications aspects of his dynamic and innovative thinking on two related issues. Distinctions are important. The distinction here is between marriage and artificial birth control. That is what is a play in the dueling opinions of David Flieschaker (whom you reproduce here) and the essay in my link courtesy of Lonergan scholar Father Philip McShane. As I said, Lonergan is a solid Catholic neo-Thomist. He would always want to answer ‘yes’ to his own question, posed in Method and Theology, the question of being an authentic Catholic. It is… Read more »
As mentioned above, Humanae Vitae doesn’t rest on scientific premises but on the natural intelligibility of the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage, and the unity of these aspects with each other. And as referenced above: When Dom Sebastian Moore asked Lonergan to whom the letter was written, Lonergan responded that he did not even remember writing the letter. There is no name of the person to whom the letter was addressed. Also, the letter is not signed by Lonergan. Furthermore, the statement about Aristotelian biology is followed by an overstated conclusion that would be unusual for Lonergan. Finally, there… Read more »
I can’t get a handle on what thoughts of your own you may have on this matter. I’m left responding to the parts of articles you are cutting and pasting. Humanae Vitae is based on the concept of natural law. If you look at the vast literature on the controversy surrounding H.V. you will note that Roman Catholic theologians, those that defend H.V. and those that are critical of it, are agreed on this. Little wonder, since that is what H.V. actually claims, natural reason ‘enlightened’ by faith. In fact, it’s presumption to speak to a wide universal community (… Read more »
Q: “Will there ever be a pope who has the fortitude to say that, after further review, and after further discernment guided by the Holy Spirit, there’s no problem with contraception that blocks fertilization, after all?” A: “Nope!” The Church’s longstanding and definitive teaching on contraception cannot be changed. In ‘Humanae Vitae’ Pope Paul VI definitively reaffirmed this. It’s infallible because of it has been upheld for generations by the ordinary and universal magisterium. Union and Procreation12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his… Read more »
See also how “annulment” has become de facto divorce (“defect of consent” at the altar: seriously guys?). If your rules are so unworkable you must bake-in loopholes, maybe reconsider your rules?
The proper term is “declaration of nullity.” After investigation a Church tribunal declares that a marriage (assumed to be valid according to Church law) fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union. There are three areas in which a wedding may fail to bring about a valid marriage – lack of capacity, lack of consent, and lack of form. I would agree with you that a certain laxity may have entered into the process. Generally speaking, incapacity due to psychological defects has shot up. These focus on the impact of mental, emotional, personal, psychological,… Read more »
Fr Ron, what is an “outwardly faithful Christian“? Whatever the beliefs and practices of particular Catholics, the objectively sinful nature of artificial contraception is held to be the constant and, thus, indefectible teaching of the Church. That individuals are poorly taught about this and/or some priests/bishops ignore it, or openly oppose it, may reduce the subjective culpability of individuals in some/many situations. However, it does not render the behaviour morally acceptable. It’s a teaching that cannot be changed. Until 1930, all Protestant denominations condemned artificial contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church decided that it was acceptable in some circumstances.… Read more »
Well, that was informative! Anyone would think that the outcome was going to be of little interest to the wider church.
It sounds like the Holy Spirit has got until mid-January to reveal the answer the bishops are searching the scriptures and praying for. It’s going to be a tense Christmas.
I’ve heard in the States (TEC) some dioceses require gay/lesbian partnered clergy to be married if they are to be living together in the parish house.
I suppose in this country straight vicars don’t have their girlfriends living in the vicarage, so kind of makes sense. But in this country gay / lesbian clergy do sometimes have partners living in the vicarage!
What a muddle it all is.
I understand that hanky panky doesn’t require cohabitation.
“I’ve heard in the States (TEC) some dioceses require gay/lesbian partnered clergy to be married if they are to be living together in the parish house.” In my diocese (Los Angeles), the bishop announced that all clergy living together with a partner need to get married. If there were circumstances the weighed against it, then the clergy person needed to talk about the bishop about them. This announcement applied not only to gay and lesbian clergy but also to some straight clergy who had refused to get married to their partners in support of their gay and lesbian colleagues who… Read more »
Surely it is now time for bishops to identify themselves and tell us where they stand.
Tim I think the bishops have to be a focus of unity in their diocese and therefore can’t tell us where they stand. They are following the lead of the Archbishop.
Isn’t that the logical conclusion of what he has said?
I agree, Tim. We’re going to find out eventually so isn’t this the time for bishops to start explaining to their dioceses what they believe and why? As has been done in Oxford and Worcester… and if what they have to say is ‘I find this difficult as I am still trying to decide’, fine, although after Shared Conversations followed by 5 years of LLF it would seem odd not to have something to report.
I find it strange, and wrong, that despite living in Wiltshire, I am now getting emails from Bishop Steven Croft, of Oxford, promoting his media interviews around Together in Love and Faith. Yet my own Bishop, Stephen Lake, of Salisbury, has been totally silent. I would want to support Steven Croft’s approach, apart from the obvious GDPR issues around capturing my email address from Amazon Kindle. I think sharing his views with his diocese encourages feedback and debate, and allows him to refine his views before irrevocable decisions are made. It also provides leadership by modelling aspects of “good disagreement”.… Read more »
“Session Eleven: Where are we now?” Short answer: After 2 years, if it takes 11 sessions just to ask that question, with still more discussion and an embargo until mid-January of next year on discussion within the wider CofE, I think the bishops have no clue where they are and where they are going. If there is some form of recognized official blessing/ecclesial recognition, I assume that bishops of a certain conscience will be able to opt out. Will there be a “flying bishop” corps (maybe the RAF can lend some aging VIP jets) to offer services to the parishes… Read more »
I know I grew up in the US, but I do consider myself a native English speaker, but I had to read this about five times before I think I know what it is saying: ‘The College also discussed commitments that bishops will take and develop further in line with the direction of travel to be agreed by Synod in February 2023. It is anticipated that these commitments would be included in the bishops’ offering to Synod and the wider Church.’ So the bishops give Synod and the wider Church, ‘Commitments’ (not related to the very good film of that name)… Read more »
As another native English speaker I increasingly find anything issued by the Church of England incomprehensible.
If they take LLF north by northwest, they’ll need to watch out for biplanes.
Much of what large bureaucratic organizations write is incomprehensible and designed to be that way. It’s like the average diplomatic agreement: It gives all parties the ability to see what they want to see. Unfortunately, in an ecclesiastical setting, any discernment the Holy Spirit is trying to convey gets lost and dazed in the maze of multiple human layers of action.
I think most know we should ‘Go West’!
Again (ref: ’39 Articles’). How many parishes in the C. of E. regard these – in toto – as any longer the basis of the faith of all Anglicans? If only because of their ecumenical and pastoral irrelevance, is it not time to file them under the title ‘The 39 Artifacts’? If Christ, for instance, is not ‘truly present’ in the Eucharist, of what benefit would it be to those who partake of it?
The 39 Articles does not deny Consubstantiation only Transubstantiation. You can believe in a real presence in the consecrated bread and wine without believing in Transubstantiation.
Historically, theologians spoke of “the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the altar.” But now it has been shortened to the “Real Presence.” Reference to the body and blood has been quietly dropped and even the name of Christ omitted. As a result, for some people “Real Presence” has come to mean simply “the idea of the risen Lord” or “the Spirit of Christ” or even just “the fellowship of the church.” In fact, the term “Real Presence” could mean just about anything to anybody. There are probably even some New Agers who talk about… Read more »
‘If Christ, for instance, is not ‘truly present’ in the Eucharist, of what benefit would it be to those who partake of it?’
I guess the only way to answer that question would be to see whether those who don’t share your understanding of the Eucharist are nevertheless transformed by their encounter with Christ, and go out from the service to live lives of love. If they do, then their participation of the Eucharist is obviously a benefit to them, whether or not they agree with your definition of real presence.
Dear Tim. In the light of your reasoning; I wonder how you deal with this saying of Jesus in the scriptures: “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day”? It was significant that Jesus used the materiality of the elements of the Eucharist, in a way that would not contradict – but, rather, consolidate the mystical understanding of what his disciples are ‘up to’ in their celebration of that sacramental meal. I agree that this is a catholic understanding of the Holy Eucharist, but that is… Read more »
Ron, I apologize if i seemed testy, but I was a little stung by your implication, in your original post, that those who don’t share your understanding of ‘true presence’ in the eucharist aren’t getting any ‘benefit’ out of it. I have no doubt that when Jesus’ followers meet to share eucharist, he is present with them. Whether that presence is a local presence in the physical elements of bread and wine, or whether it is communicated to their hearts when they receive the elements with faith, or whether it is the risen Jesus standing among us at the breaking… Read more »
The Eastern Orthodox Church has a helpful way of reflecting on this mystery: The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist—and Christ Himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity. One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of… Read more »
Thomas Aquinas’s understanding of transubstantiation excludes a local or physical presence. Because we no longer study Aristotelian metaphysics we don’t really “get” what substance means in this context. Better to look at ecumenical convergence on the Eucharist than to look back to the Reformation controversies. ARCIC, the Anglican Orthodox, Reformed and Lutheran dialogues have all had something helpful to say regarding both presence and sacrifice. An ARCIC Catechism by Henry Chadwick and Edward Yarnold (RC) is particularly helpful, short and cheap. So is ‘The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition” by McAdoo and Ken Stephenson It has always… Read more »
All very fascinating, but my point was not to debate the exact details of eucharistic theology, but to argue that it’s not only an Anglo-Catholic understanding of the Eucharist that brings real benefits to its participants.
Amen to that. How many lay Christians truly understand transubstantiation or consubtantiation, or have heard and understand the ancient Greek philosophical underpinnings of universal form and accidental (temporal) substance, even if they went to catechism classes or other denominational equivalents thereof and repeated by rote enough to ace the exam at the end? When I attended TEC Eucharist services in the past, as a member of the cathedral choir, for example, or just sitting in the pews, I didn’t partake of the elements because I am not Christian. But for me, the words “Do this in memory of me” ought… Read more »
Ah, but what does “Do this in memory of me” signify?
The Greek word used (anamnēsis) has sacrificial connotations.
A “memorial sacrifice” is a very different thing from a “memorial service” done when someone is gone. He who is “remembered” is very much present at the “memorial/remembrance” – and is tangibly and actually present in the sacrificial meal.
This is as much about theology as it is grammar!
I recognize that mainstream Christianity teaches that Jesus of Nazareth was human and God at the same time. However, while sacrificial offerings may have been relevant to various peoples of the 1st Century CE/AD, they are hardly relevant today. And the idea of someone taking it upon themself — words that I think are part of the traditional Mass/Eucharist liturgy — to sacrifice themself for my sins? I think that’s an arrogant theology, meaning no disrespect to the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the local Jewish and Roman authorities in the hopes of squelching… Read more »
Excellent stuff, peterpi. I think that the sacrificing for my sins stuff was invented to keep hoi polloi in their place. As I get older I ditch more and more orthodox doctrine, much of it harmful to mental well-being. For me the critical moment in the Jesus story is the agony in the garden when human ego-self gives way to divine selflessness. The crucifixion was “merely” a consequence of several factors. I see the mass as a cosmic drama in which selflessness trumps selfishness. It’s a pity that this isn’t explicit in the eucharistic prayer. The other critical moment in… Read more »
I’ve never actually had any teaching from the pulpit on either consubstantiation or transubstantiation, being from a low Anglican / Free background. However over the years I’ve come to believe there is a divine or spiritual presence in the sacraments, so I’m probably following ‘consubstantiation’ thinking. (Greek philosophy? The only Greek I know runs a chip shop. Say no more.) Some years ago I mentioned my belief to a very Reformed evangelical friend of ours. “What, d’you mean you believe in transubstantiation, and such like rubbish?” he demanded. “No, that is not what I said” I replied – end of… Read more »
Perhaps your very Reformed friend might read Calvin ( see B Gerrish Grace and Gratitude) or a theologian like Thomas Torrance ( Theology in Reconciliation) He might be rather surprised
Tim, this is a very intriguing point. I have often wondered, is Christ ‘less present’ or ‘not as really present’ to people in the United Church, or Presbyterian, or Baptist communion services based on their various understandings of the ritual? I recall Anglican classmates at AST chapel services back in seventies who refused to participate in United Church communion liturgies because “they don’t mean what we mean by it”. One has to distinguish between theologies of holy communion articulated by various traditions and the actual presence of Christ to those gathered around the table of the Lord. It’s analogous to… Read more »
Amen to all of that, Rod!
So unelected bishops meet in secret to thrash out a position to be presented to England as a fait accompli.
Even if they handed down everything I want to see the CoE do (equal marriage, apologies and compensation to the clergy whose lives were ruined by Higton and its successors, legal protection for traditionalists) — which they won’t — the injustice of the process would sour its outcome.
They are not elected but they are appointed through due process by elected church representatives at local and national level. Nor is this just happening in secret. They are meeting together to respond to the outcomes of the LLF process – which are public. Nor is it a fait accompli. They are to bring proposals to Synod for discussion. I think this what we expect Bishops to do at this point. I am not saying any of this is perfect but it is actually a whole lot more accountable than you imply.
The compulsory celibacy of Lesbian and Gay clergy wasn’t even mentioned in the LLF material. This for me is by far the most damaging aspect of the Church of England’s homophobia and it is the most easily resolved by the Bishops themselves without reference to Synod. The fact this this wasn’t even discussed by LLF points to bad faith by the authors and makes me question the real intention of LLF. If you say very clearly that Lesbian and Gay priests are second best and if you explicitly deny them the right to express their love in a physical way… Read more »
David. This is not a response to anything I have said here – still less believe! I think you are you intending to address someone else here?
David it’s rather more nuanced than that, though you are right to highlight the absurdity of the bishops’ current position. Bishops by and large don’t expect their LGBTQI clergy to be celibate but they will restate the party line if pressed. This leads to dishonesty of course on many levels and for all parties to the lie. It is sad that bishops prefer this fundamental dishonesty rather than rocking the ecclesiastical boat. It’s unhealthy to be living a lie; psychologically, emotionally and spiritually but that’s where so many clergy and bishops find themselves. Especially the gay and lesbian bishops with… Read more »
All fair points, and I’ll accept that I’m jaded about the appointments system given the fruits of the Crown nomination process.
We’ll see how it goes in the new year: no-one would be happier than I to be wrong about this!
Thanks James … yes, looking with deep longing into the New Year.
Lord may Thy will be done. 🙏🏾
God’s has a “perfect will” – what He wants; God’s also has a “permissive will” – what He allows.
God gave us free will. He created and gave us the facility to freely defy Him or freely love Him. Individually and collectively we make choices. The consequences that flow from human choices inconsistent with His perfect will fall within God’s permissive will.
Pray instead that the bishops assent to the call of God to follow His will (as revealed in Scripture and the constant teachings of the Church), not their own will to achieve “unity” at the expense of truth.
I’ll pray what I want. You will not dictate what I should or should not pray.
Just being clear that’s it God’s Will we pray in the Lord’s Prayer – not our own human will.
You imply being gay is a choice that is simply false. What you propose is simply illogical: that a loving God would create human beings with a need to love someone of the same gender and then deny them the right to express that in a sexual way. The Bible was divinely inspired but written by fallible human beings constrained by the knowledge and morality of the time. We have no record of Jesus explicitly condemning gay people. The bible says God created man in his own image what you are doing is creating God in your own bigoted, intolerant… Read more »
Spot on David! 👍🏽
As the then Father Joseph Ratzinger said back in 1969: “The future of the Church can and will issue from those whose roots are deep and who live from the pure fullness of their faith. It will not issue from those who accommodate themselves merely to the passing moment or from those who merely criticize others and assume that they themselves are infallible measuring rods; nor will it issue from those who take the easier road, who sidestep the passion of faith, declaring false and obsolete, tyrannous and legalistic, all that makes demands upon men, that hurts them and compels… Read more »
The Hard Road is not necessarily right and the Easy Road is not necessarily wrong.
Long held traditions also offer no guarantee of truth. For over a thousand years Christians believed in Slavery, Racism, Colonialism, Public Executions and burning heretics. The most brutal wars in history have been fought by Christians who believed they had God on their side.
That is not the point in question. The devices and desires of our hearts may or may not be under our control — how we follow them in our actions surely is.
God has created us to be imperfect and has given us the means of overcoming that imperfection.
I think the days of making gay people feel they are in some special way ‘”imperfect” are well and truly over. It is not a helpful choice of vocabulary to employ.
Not “special”, as I explain below.
“God has created us imperfect” Please consider what you are saying. You propose a “loving God” who creates Gay and Heterosexual human beings. And she says this “if I created you heterosexual you can fall in love and express this love physically but if I created you gay you are condemned to love someone else but I forbid you to express this physically (especially if you are ordained)” Forget for a moment what fallible first century authors wrote about their understanding of sexuality in the Bible. A God who constructed the World in this way would not be a “loving… Read more »
That is not what I propose, and I do not intend to engage with a misrepresentation of the position I put forward. To reiterate: our natures are fallen: that is, it is not possible for any of us by our own unaided efforts to do anything that is entirely perfect. In particular, no form of sexual desire can be said to be without sin. A prevalent modern fallacy is that adherence to some favoured beliefs, or pronouncement of some favoured opinions, is sufficient to render someone perfect or at least in some way good enough to deserve something on our… Read more »