Gavin Drake Church Abuse In memory of Clive Billenness
Marcus Walker The Critic More than just a figurehead
“A new plan aims to strip the Archbishop of Canterbury of any real power or authority”
Helen King sharedconversations Living in parched places: February 2025 General Synod
Andrew Atherstone Law & Religion UK Wheat bread and fermented wine at Holy Communion? The origins of Canon B17
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Jesus and human flourishing or Trump, enemy of Christian humanism
Neil Patterson ViaMedia.News When Will the Bishops Think Properly About Same-Sex Marriage?3>
Helen King describes an incident where the issue of safeguarding being from a Christian body or not was questioned. She states: “At one of the zoom briefings I attended, a question was asked about whether the group chosen to run safeguarding if this Option was adopted would be ‘Christian’, and the answer given was that this would not be one of the criteria used. While knowledge of the church is obviously needed, Christian faith is not.” I find it disturbing, but maybe not surprising. It maybe brings to light the true cause of fear of independent safeguarding. I note Jay… Read more »
Atherstone’s piece is fascinating and important.
Grape juice is not wine. That is obvious to everyone.
Jews, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists and Methodists don’t find it obvious.
It smacks of Thomas Hardy’s “Good God – all creation groaning and the eastward position.”
Fascinating indeed.
For me the problem with most of the arguments in there is that they overlook one important aspect of the Eucharist, one which is actually mentioned in liturgy. Christ gave his body and blood. A gift. So one of the chief attributes of the bread and wine are that they have the attributes of a gift.
If an alcoholic visits would I “give” them alcoholic wine? Of course not.
If a celiac is coming to dinner, would I buy gluten-free bread to “give” them? Of course I would.
All the other concerns are secondary.
There was a noticeable crunching of gears when the Bishop of Leicester said that Canon B2 was back on the table. Maybe there is such a thing as Doctrine of Marriage after all and changing it by the back door might not quite be the right thing to do. A sign perhaps that he might be taking his own advice and doing some listening. It’s been a long time coming!
I agree. If the C of E actually changes the canon B2 it will demonstrate that the compass has been lost and we can all go our separate ways. The church will rupture and become as diminished as the Scottish church. Welcoming all people without apostasy is possible but the split is starting to tell.
The Walker article is intriguing. It’s like everyone in the CofE wants the ABC to function in a global role — as if historic sees in Christendom retain some eternal efficacy and imprimatur, and this especially true in Canterbury. The sell-by date on this idea has come and gone, and those recognizing it aren’t forcing the matter, but acknowledging a reality: Welby chief among them. There is a good series, reflecting various points of view and locations in the Communion, discussing the recent report and recommendations at The Living Church. One of the rare points of convergence in the AC… Read more »
You’ve expressed very well what I was thinking about Marcus Walker’s piece. It seems a wistful and rather romanticised viewpoint. Those who have lived, worked, travelled to and worshipped in parts of the Anglican world beyond England know very well that these are self-governing provinces who get on with their church life without concern for ‘Cantuar’ and the C of E. At the most, there is an acknowledgment of historic bonds of affection with the ABC. And nothing more.
The whole problem with the question of Canterbury’s relationship to the AC is too bound up with the question of human sexuality. The Windsor Report and the resulting (doomed) Covenant has made that so. The Living Church is aligned with the more conservative element. So it is not unbiased journalism – as if there was any such thing anyway. But the question of the relationship between Canterbury and the AC needs decoupling from the question of human sexuality before it can be properly explored.
Neil Patterson (When Will the Bishops Think Properly About Same-Sex Marriage?) spots a flaw in the ERG’s claim that the 2013 Act changed nothing with regard to opposite-sex married couples, “The reality is that the meaning of all marriages was changed. Every opposite-sex couple now marrying is entering the same legally married state as all the same-sex couples married.” Thus a man in a same-sex marriage wishing to marry a woman in a church ceremony would find that the Church is not about to be a party to bigamy – despite her definition of marriage as the union of one… Read more »
As usual theology is missing from this discussion, and as theology concerns matters of salvation it is rather important don’t you think? All doctrine is based on theology and doesn’t change as a result of an Act of Parliament. Even Parliament acknowledged that!
For some reason I can vividly remember the Vicar of my church in Cornwall publishing banns between a ‘bachelor’ of his parish and a ‘spinster’ of some parish in Wales with many more consonants than vowels that he found impossible to pronounce. Given the new legislation in the Church in Wales, the churchmanship of that parish and the narrowness of that incumbent that would cause a major earthquake if it were repeated today involving a same-sex relationship. As it is a legal requirement for banns to be called if the marriage is legal there would presumably be no ‘escape’..