Francis Martin at the Church Times has a report on what happeed last weekend in the LLF group discussions:
Same-sex prayers and marriage: latest Love and Faith proposals considered by the Bishops.
See previous article for the official report on what happened at the House of Bishops meeting on Thursday.
The Church of England Evangelical Council has published two items:
John Dunnett says:
There’s a lot of water going under the Living in Love and Faith Bridge right now, including today, the 16th of May, a discussion at the House of Bishops. Whilst we do not know what they will conclude and what therefore will be brought to General Synod in July, it is clear that two things are going to happen. One, that the so-called ‘standalone services’ for blessings of same-sex relationships will be made possible.
And secondly, that, probably by the removal of ‘so-called’ discipline, that clergy in some dioceses are going to be able to marry their same-sex partners. Maybe as soon as this autumn. These are big changes, and I think it’s fairly clear that they are indeed indicative of a change of doctrine…
It’s a great pity that Evangelicals in the CofE can’t secede to other like-minded happy-clappy churches in the UK to ensure their biblical purity. Likewise, Catholics, like Philip North, would surely find a welcome in the Ordinariate where, not only would they be completely free from women clergy, they can pretend it’s a gay-free zone. It’s silly for “conservatives” to attempt to live under a scriptural CofE ‘lock-down’ when they could be safely quarantined elsewhere.
Not all evangelicals are opposed to LLF.
No, and there is a similar Evangelical divide in the Baptist Union of Great Britain.
I think Baptists like many Anglicans are coming to a realise that this is a moment of Holy Spirit disruption in the church and we have been comfortable for too long. Unlike the Anglicans, Baptists are an association of local churches and so reform should happen relatively quickly.
But equally those not in favour of LLF are not all conservative evangelicals but a broad church of Conservative and Open evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and Charismatics including many whose churches welcome LGBQTI people but do not agree with the theological argument for blessing same sex relationships or same sex marriage.
I think most of us in favour of the blessings are fine with the idea that some may choose to bless same sex relationships but no one must, similar to the situation with remarriage after divorce. The church can accommodate various theological positions as it already does on many issues such as the significance of communion. The problem lies with those who cannot accept the wide variety of different views within the CofE and seek to impose their own beliefs on everyone. If you want everyone in your church to believe the same thing (outside of the historic creeds where… Read more »
Thank you. However the problem is for those of us who have worshipped within the Anglican Church for over 60 years, a move like this contrary to the orthodox teaching of the Church over centuries is problematical. Are we to move on to bless other relationships that are stable and faithful? Incestual relationships? Polyamory? Once we overrule one area of teaching others become ripe for review. What too of the extension of same sex marriage, the creation of a family? Have the bishops given serious consideration to a theological position on surrogacy and artificial insemination by donor? Remarriage of divorced… Read more »
But would you not say, Simon, that the current status quo DOES denigrate LGBT people? For them it is demeaning. For them it is not only abstract theology.
To denigrate means to regard someone as unimportant. LGBT people are important members of our church, should be valued and appreciated as should anyone who crosses the threshold of our churches . If that hasn’t happened in the past then that is wrong and should be avoided at all costs in the future. But this is different to changing the teaching of the Church to bless or marry same sex couples. Theology is rarely abstract and in this case those parts of the bible that have something to say are important and not an irrelevance to be argued away. Which… Read more »
Well God bless you anyway, Simon.
“To denigrate means to regard someone as unimportant.”
Let’s look at it from the recipients’ point of view: being denigrated.
Many LGBT people rightly feel denigrated, when a status quo doctrine theologically vilifies the tender, sacrificial, devoted sexuality of gay couples, as ‘sin’. That’s the denigrating doctrine.
I mean, how would you like it if your sexual tenderness with your wife (if you have one) was condemned as ‘sin’?
The deceased wife’s sister’s marriage act of 1907 overturned centuries of Canon Law after a long agitation for reform. I don’t recall the heavens opening and all sorts of evils resulting. Neither would a modest opening of Christian marriage to couples of the sex. The idea that polyandry, incestuous relationships or marriage to your dog will follow as night follows days, is patent nonsense.
Oops, sorry Simon. Should be ‘same sex’!
Apologies for a late reply as I’ve been on holiday. Patent nonsense? I don’t think so. The passages in Leviticus 18 and 20 put a large number of prohibited relationships together. The churches current position on many of these relationships in Canon B31 is I believe based on these passages. As verses relating to same sex relationships sit alongside these, if Doctrine is changed to endorse one type of relationship I think it is not an unreasonable concern that at some point in the future there would be a push to change the churches position on other relationships. What is… Read more »
Surely any future issues should be addressed in the future? Using them to attempt to delay or prevent the bare minimum for same sex couples is neither justified nor reasonable.
Ah yes, the “you asked for bread, we’re giving you a stone” type of “welcome”…
In which case they’d be happy to stay.
Unless they want to leave for other reasons, such as e.g the Church’s appalling safeguarding record and treatment of survivors; the Church’s misogyny; or its terrible treatment of its clergy.
My point was not about who wants to stay and who wants to go, but the persistent lumping together of evangelicals of all stripes and convictions.
Thank you. Well said. I have had enough of gift rapped sugar coated bigotry prejudice and homophobia with a dose of raw misogyny thrown in.
Sounds like you want a pure, unsullied, exclusive cult of true believers in which everyone is welcome so long as they agree with you. No thanks.
No Bob. That’s your ideal church where only evangelicals preach God’s Word Written according to your own infallible interpretation.
But I am not the one suggesting that people who hold different views or prefer different styles of worship should leave.
No. But your fellow fundamentalists think everyone should agree with them. If not, why are they causing such a fuss?
I shall ignore your rudeness and continue to enjoy being part of growing church family which is multigenerational and multiethnic. A church family of over 500 that supports a range of mercy ministries as well gospel workers across the globe. A church family that supports churches in the most deprived parishes of the diocese as well as supporting the bishop in planting new churches or grafting onto existing small churches. A church family with over 100 children and young people, as well as a thriving ministry amongst the elderly and the 20’s and 30’s. A church family that enjoys a… Read more »
Let me get this right:
We’ve failed to get gay marriage, and in return we reward the conservative faction with their own partitioned section of the Church?
It was done for those who object to the ordination and consecration of women which set a terrible precedent.
It’s why everyone on the LGBTQ+ spectrum, racial and ethnic minorities, the disabled and even women as a whole should be concerned how trans people are being treated at the moment in the UK. Once othering of any minority is accepted it’s easy for it to be applied to any other minority.
I’m looking forward to the briefing paper on what the Church of England thinks the episcopate is. That loud whirring you can hear is Cyprian spinning in his grave.
Why, oh why are so many Christians totally obsessed with sexual rules and morality? When we look at the Bible, Old and New Testament, the greatest caution is against money and power, and their ability to rot and destroy faith from within and society with it. Compare the number of references, particularly in the Gospels The majority of violent deaths, and indeed ordinary deaths, are the consequence of power-seeking and the concomitant hoarding of money and resources, and the inability of the poor to access food, education, and proper healthcare. Where are the condemnations by Christians of social deprivation and… Read more »
Thomas I completely get the frustration! I’m sure there are many people to whom Jesus would repeat what he said about the religious elite of his day: ‘You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.’ We’re so good at getting completely obsessed in the wrong direction. But interestingly Jesus then says: ‘You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.’ Personally I don’t think he meant that literally, but I think it shows that details do matter. Morality clearly matters (killing people is… Read more »
It is far easier for ministers at Holy Trinity Brompton to entreat gay people to forgo sexual relations than for members to give up their Range Rovers, and to stop financing right-wing causes like the ghastly GB News. Sex is much more acceptable for rich straight people than for gays with no money.
You keep repeating this nonsense about HTB which is not true! The vicars I know at HTB are more likely to ride bikes than own Range Rovers, and they do not finance GB news. All their money goes on mission. They do teach identity in Christ is more important than anything else , including sexual identity.
It’s members of the congregation who drive Range Rovers and finance GB News. The idea of “identity in Christ” is a meaningless cloak for the type of homophobia taught by Gumbel and his followers.
Funny that you should say that, Father. Have HTB’s leaders heard of, or read works by the late Derek Prince and the ‘Kansas City Prophets’? Derek said some very pointed remarks about ‘successful churches’ with very expensive cars outside them. (Must admit, I feel similarly about ‘cherished marks’ (private number plates) especially if owned by Christians – but that’s just my opinion, with no claims to divine authority!)
At the risk of sounding frivolous, one of my maxims has always been, ‘Always be suspicious of a Church with a large car park.’
David, some of us live in sprawling cities with barely adequate public transportation systems (especially on Sunday mornings). At the current glacial rate of construction it will likely be several years before the LRT reaches the part of Edmonton (Alberta) where my former church, St. Margaret’s, is located, and the nearest bus stop is too far from the church for elderly people.
So I would invite you to reconsider that word ‘always’.
Sexual ethics was one thing that defined the Christian church at its formation, so it is baked into the church and there is no getting away from it.
You mean commitment, fidelity, sacrifice, devotion to one another?
I’d say that was the heart of sexual ethics.
I see that in gay couples and straight couples alike, bringing gift to church and community.
The majority of people in this country recognise that today, and it’s excellent if the Church proclaims it because it is good and very precious.
At the end of the nineteenth century there were riots and court cases over the nature of the Eucharist. The 39 articles contains an explicit denial of Transubstantiation. But every Sunday High Mass is celebrated in Catholic Anglican parishes without a word of dissent from hard line evangelicals. A significant minority in Church of England believe that women can’t or shouldn’t be priests let alone Diocesan Bishops and having a woman bishop impacts on every parish in her Diocese. But the Church of England found a way around these two apparently intractable theological issues. So why is it LLF alone… Read more »
Hardline conservative never had the numbers to form a blocking minority on eucharistic theology, the ordination of women, or the remarriage of divorcees. The shrinking of the church, and the relative increase in size of the conservative faction has made the blocking minority very much a reality in the case of equal marriage. It’s not a theological issue, it’s a power play. If conservatives had the numbers in Synod 30 years ago they’d absolutely have tried this over the ordination of women.
Was there ever any attempt by a blocking minority over eucharistic theology?My own view is quite clear. I believe absolutely in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist ,body, blood soul and divinity. If I had to put a name to it I would it would be transubstantiation. Every time I said mass, that is what I believed and that is what I taught. If the priest in the next parish believed and taught differently, so be it. We all seemed to get on at the time.
The 1928 BCP was blocked in part because it permitted reservation, which offended the eucharistic sensibilities of a large enough faction for a campaign to get parliament to block it to succeed. This, like opposition to equal marriage, saw an alliance of conservative evangelicals and conservative Anglo-Catholics.
Thank you, Jo B, you are of course quite right. For the evangelicals it was too catholic, for the more extreme anglo catholics, not catholic enough. I went back to my bookshelf to extract ‘Walsingham Way’ by Colin Stevenson, and was reminded of the unlikely alliance of the Bishop of Norwich, and Fr Hope Patten, the restorer of the shrine who battled against each other for years but found common cause on this one matter. Funny old place the C of E. Since then, successive bishops and shrine administrators have got on perfectly well.
I share your view, Ian. To me, it’s supernatural (and that shouldn’t be surprising if we believe in a supernatural God). But I have been in church fellowships where members have a wide diversity of views on various subjects and yet, as you put it, we seemed to get on… because of love and grace. We never had to split from each other. We would have been diminished if we had. Providing we respect that fellow Christians may hold different conscience-based views, I feel that should be sufficient to get on with each other, and open our lives to the… Read more »
I think that’s a good parallel. When I take Communion I don’t give a thought to whether the person kneeling next to me thinks it is literally the body and blood or not. If they think differently that doesn’t diminish or tarnish my experience. Even if the minster said it was just figuratively the body and blood I would still just think “silly old trout”, say nothing and accept the host.
I dont think there was ever a blocking minority against transubstantiation for the simple reason nothing was proposed that could be blocked. If there had been a proposal to change the doctrine to include transubatantiation it would, I think, have been blocked by a large majority.
What happened was that priests such as yourself simply got on with it. Maybe there is a lesson there.
It’s all very exhausting. Priests preach the truth as they see it against a backdrop of an unbelieving world. Showing devotion to Our Lord in the Tabernacle can engender devotion and holiness. Meanwhile the vicar in a T-shirt down the road is pouring the consecrated wine back in the bottle to be used at his next “meeting”. It’s all very contradictory, confusing and entirely relative. It’s all just a matter of opinion. And we wonder why no one is bothered to turn up!
Transubstantiation holds that the elements of bread and wine cease being that at the moment of consecration. This is different to ‘real presence’ which follows no particularly defined account of ‘substance’ and ‘accidents.’ I am confused about your conflation of these two accounts of eucharistic presence. Are you saying that at the moment of consecration, the material elements are no longer that, but rather have been lifted into a modality above their ‘substantiality’?
I expect you’re right. As Gerry Westerby said to George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, ” you’re the owl.”
I was taught ( following Lancelot Andrewes’s response to Fisher) Anglicans we’re not required to believe any particular theory of the relationship of the Sign to the Thing Signified as also in the BCP catechism. .
And this would of course be a rejection of ‘transubstantiation,’ which is a quite specific account of ‘accidents’ and ‘substance’ (often associated with Aristotelian influence on (late) mediaeval catholic teaching). I’m not sure what duty the term is meant to be doing in this context.
Blessed praised and hallowed be Our Lord Jesus Christ upon his throne of glory, and in the Most Holy Thing Signified!
And when I served Professor John Macquarie ‘s mass as a student, his vestry prayer on returning to the sacristy was ” Blessed, praised and hallowed be Jesus Christ in his throne of glory, in the most holy sacrament of the altar and in the hearts of his faithful people”.
Come on Perry, it was a bit of a joke.
How does help with the question of transubstantiation? Lutherans themselves are often bothered by the anglican idea of ‘feeding on him in your hearts by faith’? Too, Zwinglian they hold. They prefer ‘in the most holy sacrament of the altar and in the teeth and stomach of his faithful people.’ Neither account is headed toward transubstantiation.
I am going to hoover my living room later on. I have a Hetty.
We all know what Hoover means in general parlance even if strictly speaking it’s a brand name. Many words and phrases have both strict and common uses. Transubstantiation is one of those words.
I agree. You would probably find if you locked 20 theologians in a room you would end up with 20 different versions of what transubstantiation means. But maybe ask a child to put it in straightforward words: “When we take communion, the bread turns into Jesus’s body, and the wine turns into Jesus’s blood.” How does that happen? It just does. Even the most learned theologian in the world won’t be able to say, because it is a holy mystery and we are not God. But we believe, and God is there in the bread and the wine. ‘This is… Read more »
Transubstantiation does not mean only this. This is critical to note. The term refers to the bread and wine ceasing being bread and wine, and only being the Body of Christ. Anglicans have never held this view. They believe in consubstantiation. The bread and wine are forms of God’s usage as bread and wine, and do not cease being that, as Christ is also truly present. There is no reason to breezily rejoice in ‘no one really knows what the term means,’ and No, 20 theologians are not confused here. Neither should a child be confused. That is a false… Read more »
Anglicans have always held and continue to hold a wide variety of views, including transubstantiation (in spite of the Articles), consubstantiation and just about any other you care to name. I try to be content with the (alleged) Elizabethan formula:
“Twas God the Word that spake it,
He took the Bread and brake it:
And what that Word did make it,
That I believe and take it.”
In all its studied ambiguity and acceptance of whatever it is that God has given us in the mystery of the Eucharist.
I am puzzled(not for the first time!). In your reply to me you talk of no particularly defined account where real presence is concerned, and in this post, confdently say Anglicans believe in consubstantiation. That looks to me like a definition. Am I wrong? One thing I don’t think I am wrong about, is that you could trawl the two provinces of the C of E from end to end and be hard pressed to find a child who has even heard of consubstantiation.
That’s because it does not require any terminology. It is what the BCP states. Up and down the land. And of course, up and down the land, ‘transubstantiation’, a word emerging in Tridentine controversy, is — though weirdly being described as the faith of children and 20 confused theologians — unknown. And why, because it is not what the liturgy of the CofE, and Anglicans worldwide, speaks of. Be thou not puzzled. Let the liturgy do its work. Follow its logic. Or ask Elizabeth of the Settlement. “By his word He spake it, He took the bread and brake it….”.… Read more »
The liturgical life of the CofE–1549, 1552, 1559 and then Settlement– is far closer to Zwingli and Luther than to the Council of Trent. Certainly we can agree here. Transubstantiation describes the modus of change. It also declares this modus capable through a sacramental understanding of Priesthood they hold to be catholic and wanting in those bodies rising up in the Reformation/s. By their own accounts of ministry and priesthood. The reformed bodies in question, Cranmer above all included (with the Alsatian Martin Bucer alongside) declared their respective accounts of Communion/Lord’s Supper to be scriptural, as against the positions they,… Read more »
Hoorah Professor Seitz. Your outline review of the fluctuating differentiations over the understanding of the eucharist in the 16th Century is wonderfully acute and focussed. I loved it! No, I do not believe that 20 theologians cannot agree on *anything*. I value theology (for example the methodology and incisiveness of some feminist theologians). What I was really trying to say was that definition of what happens in the eucharist is coming at things from the wrong direction, because the miraculous is ministered to us, rather than any of us knowing/understanding the full reality of the supernatural miracle. There are some… Read more »
I suspect if you want mystery (sacramentum) ‘transubstantiation’ isn’t your friend. It is a very precise account of what is going on, using metaphysics.
This is why I was puzzled. You and others were making it sound like a generously imprecise thing. That it was not nor was intended to be.
Grace and peace from the Hospices de Beaune, where love carried the infirm into the arms of eternal life. I thank God for my late wife leaving me this vocation in her name. Historical detail is light and life. Forgive my resistance to X means Y.
Grace and peace.
Susannah, you say ‘Better to take the child’s simple trust I believe, in as simple terms as possible: the bread becomes Jesus’s body; the wine becomes Jesus’s blood.’ Yeah, I don’t think I agree with that. I believe Jesus comes to us in the bread and wine (surely ‘eating his body’ and ‘drinking his blood’ are metaphors for receiving life through him. What would be the benefit of literally eating someone’s body and drinking their blood?). But I would not categorically identify the bread as his body and the wine as his blood. After all, Jesus’ use of ‘is’ or… Read more »
I believe in a Broad Church, Tim. I would say that I myself embrace the words evangelical, catholic, charismatic, social, contemplative, liberal, spiritually conservative. The list probably goes on. Of course sometimes people would challenge my empathy for those labels, but we each walk our paths. When it comes to eucharist I lean towards the supernatural and what lay people might call the ‘magical’. I believe something inexplicable actually happens to the physical elements. But in the end, we each take the bread and the wine and give thanks. You are a brother in Christ. Also a valued ally of… Read more »
My uncle Ted ( God rest him ) was a devout Methodist lay pteacher. So opposed was he to Catholic teaching, that he couldn’t accept that even catholics believed it, he would say “what catholics say they believe”. His take on the eucharist went like this. ‘It’s like Aunt Fanny’s teapot. When we gather round the table and drink tea from the teapot , we are all remembering Aunt Fanny.’ Now, it was a personal view, and I am sure was extreme, and not representative of methodism, and certainly not of low church anglicanism, but I offer it simply as… Read more »
Consubstantiation as quasi-alchemy? Indeed. And, I’m guessing you would be hard pressed to find someone who is dedicated to turning ‘base metals’ into gold. Lol. (see link). However, pace the ’39 stripes save one’, it is a given in Anglican churches that one finds red lamps ( or white ones) signaling that Jesus is in residence. One sees the ‘blessed sacrament’ paraded on solemn procession from the sanctuary to the ‘altar of repose’ on Maundy Thursday. So, It is interesting to look at the gap between professional liturgists and parochial liturgical practice. Certainly in the Anglican Church of Canada, when… Read more »
That is just wrong (or ignorant). Hoover all you want. Hetty all you want. Transubstantiation has a meaning. A single meaning. You wanting to hoover/hetty it away is not going to change that. But maybe the relevant question is: why would one want to?
Roman Catholics who endorse transubstantiation know what the word means. They clearly object to non RC’s changing it because they like vagueness or ‘brand name’ insertions into what they believe.
The Tridentine Decree is in three parts. For R.C’s ( at least those ecumenically minded) what matters is the second part about the conversio or miraculous change in the bread and wine, less the third part which says this is best explained in the categories of substance and accidents. When I studied reformation eucharistic controversies and ecumenical convergence with Prof Jared Wicks S.J. at the Greg many moons ago this was he believed the key area in ecumenical disagreement . Interestingly the footnote in the A R.C.I.C document explaining transubstantiation was drafted by an Anglican, Henry Chadwick!
I think the idea of Trent and transubstantiation arises in the context of controversy. Things get super heated. I am reading a paper at the Angelicum in Rome next month on the status of the Vulgate at Trent and the emergence of vernacular translations. That is another place where things got overstated, and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate bears witness to humanist training inside the Catholic Church. The legacy of Jerome was always uneasily received, from the moment of his appeal to the Hebrew Verity.
Please note that ‘Hoover’ only has that meaning in the UK. In North America we refer to them as ‘vacuum cleaners’ (‘Biro’ is ‘ball point pen’ too).
This illustrates how inaccurate the common phrase ‘we all know’ often is.
Of course, anything which is seen to threaten the ‘sanctity of marriage’, ‘the marriage bed’ and the family is immediately deemed, in some circles, to be an assault on the very foundations of a stable society, and therefore must be fought to the last drop of (preferably) its advocates blood. I feel the same frustration as Toby and Thomas do over this – the evangelical church is only radical, or crusading on certain very clearly defined issues, while happily accepting, tolerating or condoing an awful lot of very serious social injustices which do a great deal of harm. Trouble is,… Read more »
What utter rubbish.
If you believe something is a sin and cannot be blessed by the church, you must separate from it somehow. The other issues are about church order. This is about salvation.
Plenty of people believe that remarriage while one’s former spouse is alive is a sin (and that is a view with Dominical words behind it) and yet have managed to accommodate themselves to said “sin” being blessed by the church (even long before solemnisations of such marriages were permitted to take place in church). If that’s not a salvation issue that requires separation then it’s highly unconvincing to suggest it is if the couple are of the same sex. It’s time to call this bluff.
I have never exactly understood this logic. The idea seems to be that a bogus account of remarriage makes same-sex marriage an easier horse to ride. If I was calling for that kind of change, I would not want to make it on the basis of, ‘a mistake was made there, and so let’s go forward here.’
I don’t think that is what is being argued: people just see the hypocrisy in not regarding one kind of departure from the historic Christian understanding of marriage (in the case of the remarriage of divorcees) as a communion-breaking issue, while the other one (which incidentally affects far fewer people) is. Of course that is hypocritical: biblical fundamentalists picking and choosing only certain issues to be fundamentalist about are not being logical. Logic and fairness are not what is driving them, are they?
I don’t believe a mistake was made in either case, I’m just perplexed as to how one can be a salvation issue justifying schism while the other, far more cut and dried from a Biblicist point of view, merits barely a shrug. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the noise made is as much determined by calculations about whether they can force concessions than about theological consistency or integrity.
Watching from across the pond, I don’t see much hope for the CofE. Five years ago, my bishop had a forum of clergy to announce her plans to allow same-sex marriages to take place. Her proposal was that any clergyperson intending to officiate such a marriage get her permission first (a procedure that does exist by canon for marriages in which one party is not baptized). Several of us, who had declared our willingness to officiate same-sex marriages, pushed back and argued that the procedures should be the same as for opposite-sex couples. To our surprise, one of the more… Read more »
But how is your Province doing? Most that have allowed this, the decline has accelerated.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc…
Praise to God on High has gone Straight Up!
Oh, you mean “decline” ONLY in terms of “bums in pews/money in plate” don’t you…
This subject (like several others) is a favorite hobby horse on the TA merry go round. Just for example see and scroll the March 16th thread (link). If you have the time to search, you will see several other examples of reprised debates.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/opinion-16-march-2024/#comments
my bad Jim, my reply was actually intended for ‘Rich’ and Rich’s question.