Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Eight Progressive CofE Groups to meet Next Steps Group Bishops.
The Archbishop of York The Labour Party Conference Church Service
“Each year Christians on the Left host a church service at the beginning of the Labour Party Conference. This year Archbishop Stephen was invited to preach at St James in the City, Liverpool.”
Andi Chapman ViaMedia.News Ordained, Commissioned, Faithful and Eternally Hopeful
First rate Mighty Word from the Archbishop of York to the Labour Party Conference. Similarly, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered an excellent Eulogy at Queen Elizabeth’s State Funeral. Both of our Primates hit exactly the right note at two very different occasions. Well done Ebor and Cantuar.
Regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury’s (if I may, the ABC) sermon at the State Funeral. It was a State Funeral, in a State in which not all of the Queen’s subjects were Christian, let alone full-paid-up members in good standing of the CofE. And by the end of the ABC’s revival, I was half-expecting an altar call. Yes, Their Majesties since the 1500s are Supreme Governors of the Church of England, and, I believe, Defenders of the Faith, and yes, Their Majesties get to sign off (or not) on CofE appointments, and yes, Church and State are tightly twined in… Read more »
But, apart from that, you liked it?
God save the king.
The service was great. Both services were.
The day was a beautiful tribute to the late Queen.
And any service that incorporates the Kontakion for the Departed ranks high in my book.
God save the King, indeed!
When the American colonies decided to tell King George III they no longer required his services, they lost out on a great national anthem.
Singable by everyone and no need for an octave-and-a-half range.
The Americans sing “My country, ’tis of thee” to the same wonderful tune calling it “America”, and other hymns have been written to be sung to it, and various verses have been added at times to the two verses used as the National Anthem in Britain. We sing it as the Royal Anthem here in Australia (and I have thought of including it in my funeral service which is otherwise complete except for the date, and any sermon banned). It would have been sung at all the memorial services here for the Queen of Australia and at similar services in… Read more »
Does not “state” refer to the level of pomp and ceremony, rather than to the fact that it’s a government-funded event?
Technically, I think no. A state funeral is one paid for by the state. The funeral of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in 2002 was extremely similar in the level of ceremonial, but was not paid for by the state: it was described as a ceremonial funeral, not a state funeral.
Prince Philip’s was a ceremonial funeral. Who paid for that? How about Margaret Thatcher’s?
Two eminent churchmen in the region known as Oceania were given state funerals. David Hand was the first Primate of the Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea (PNG). He died at age 87 in 2006. His funeral was in the national capital Port Moresby, and the Anglican News Service reported that it was a state funeral, as did the Guardian obituary. Paul Reeves, successively Archbishop of New Zealand and Governor-General of New Zealand, was given a state funeral in Auckland in 2011.
Mother Teresa’s funeral in Calcutta was a state funeral. She had taken out Indian citizenship in 1951. Another example of a well known religious who, finding himself settled in a country other than his native one, became a citizen of it is Thomas Merton. He took out US citzenship.
Bother Gilbert Sinden of the Society of the Sacred Mission (SSM), which had its HQ in Kelham Notts., was posted to the Society’s Adelaide house and after a period took out Australian citizenship. He was well known in Australia.
Wow! What a sermon from ABY…I just hope it gets a wider airing and some press coverage……I found it really heartening and we are on the same page after all. Thanks.
You’re right, that was a powerful sermon.
To me, the ABY spoke the real message of Jesus of Nazareth: His call for social justice.
The ABY may as well have been using Matthew 25:34-45 as his source material.
Like Mary’s Magnificat, that section of Matthew is a call for the type of change the ABY is preaching.
In countries like the UK, those in the EU, in the USA, in other economically well-off nations, the economic disparity is getting worse. That is not Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim — not decent humanity.
Has an Archbishop been invited to preach at a church service hosted by CHristians on the Right at the beginning of the Conservative Party Conference? Maybe I was dreaming? I’m picturing Mrs Thatcher’s Good Samaritan? However … we always pray for you … unworthy servants … or, if harvest thanksgiving let them rejoicingly eat heavenly bread? Foodbank for thought? If there be anything of good report …
Excellent sermon! Hopefully he’ll find an opportunity to present it to a much wider audience. If mortgage rates hit 6% in the UK and stay there, there will be civil unrest. Many families are leveraged up their eyeballs with mortgage debt. His Majesty’s Government need to hear this sermon before the markets close tonight (Thursday).
Rises in mortgage rates are clearly tough for those with mortgages, and interest rate rises are difficult for borrowers in general. On the other hand, the effectively negative interest rates for more than a decade now have penalised savers – including those saving for a deposit on a home, or for the costs of care as they get older. Too often interest rate rises are spoken of only in terms of their effect on borrowers.
I quite agree that higher interest rates are good for those of us with savings; I myself will be a modest beneficiary. The point I was making is that if lots of families have to hand their keys into the mortgage lender or otherwise face repossession of their home, there will be great unhappiness in society. Especially if it is on such a scale that there is a crash in house prices and hence for some negative equity. Savers are by and large an undemonstrative lot unless there is a run on the bank as happened with Northern Rock. If… Read more »
The archbishop draws attention to just one aspect of the mini-budget, and the most controversial: namely, the proposed lowering of the 45% top rate of tax to 40%. Until the Chanceller’s dramatic U-turn this morning, it would only have been brought down to a level where it had been for two decades until just a few days before the end of the New Labour administration. Gordon Brown cynically raised it to 50%, knowing full well that it would be a ticking time bomb for the incoming Tory-led administration. He was dead right! But when George Osborne lowered the top rate… Read more »
But when George Osborne lowered the top rate to 45% it had the counterintuitive effect of netting more tax, not less. I don’t think we have the evidence to support this claim. The 50p rate was in place for such a short period that what seems to have happened is that, knowing it would be cut, some very wealthy people shifted some income into the next tax year (pretty easy to do if you’re paying yourself in dividends from companies you own, for example) giving the tax take an artificial dip in one year and a boost in the next. It doesn’t… Read more »
Or they decide to live in the UK, invest in the local economy, start companies and employ people, thus helping to increase overall GDP. That’s arguably the main benefit resulting from reducing the top tier, aside from the tax revenues generated which, as you say, depends on your interpretation of Laffer. In any case, the Church should steer clear of the politics of envy, which seems to motivate a lot of the discussion on the Left.
I agree the church should steer clear of envy. It should, however, be right on top of the politics of “asking why the poor have no food”, and its corollaries relating to heating, shelter et al. The desire for safety and security, free from the stresses of poverty and want, is not envy. Wanting more than that, wanting wealth to show off or impress, does tip over into greed
Agreed. The driving motivation of socialism isn’t ‘envy’. It’s justice. It’s worth regularly reading ‘The Magnificat’.
True in the same way, and to the same extent, as the corresponding comment that the driving motivation of conservatism isn’t greed but justice.
No socialist politician ever stood up and said “envy is good”.
I just want to thank Colin Coward and those from the other groups attending LLF meetings on behalf of all of us LGBTIQ+ people
“An end to homophobic and transphobic teaching and practice in the Church of England. Homophobic and transphobic teaching and practice underpins systemic abuse in the Church.” This is the problematic item in the Inclusive Organisations Goals as detailed in Colin’s article. If it means that socially conservative Christians in the Church of England will not be permitted to preach and uphold the view they hold on sexuality, based on a conscientious reading of the Bible, then I’m afraid, in the context of LLF discernment and decisions, this item is a non-starter. It’s just not realistic to expect the bishops to… Read more »
It might be the most difficult, but it is also the most important. Yes, it would be nice for same sex couples to marry in church instead of in a civil venue; it would also be nice for clergy in same sex marriages to keep their licence; however, neither is as important as ensuring that God’s loving and universal welcome is preached unreservedly in all churches without being tainted by homophobia or transphobia.
Well said Kate. I understand the urge to follow a realpolitik approach, accepting that crumbs are better than nothing, but the inevitable outcome is allowing abusers to continue their abuse. Even if we don’t expect the church to stop homo/transphobic teaching, we must still make it crystal clear that we want it to stop. Homophobia / transphobia is abuse, and abuse, whether it’s in the Bible or not, is abuse. Homophobia / transphobia is an objective reality perpetrated by cis/heterosexuals. It sullies the perpetrators though the consequences are entirely borne by LGBT people. It’s not about ‘opinions’ it’s not about,… Read more »
How a person or group experience the actions or words of others is a reality and a very important one. To say, as you appear to do, that how a person or group experiences the words or actions of others has authority over others is incoherent.
How can one person or group be found to have such authority. Why are other people or groups compelled to be subordinate ?
Communal life depends on the acceptance of shared values which are the property of everybody. You cannot just invent authority for one group
Unfortunately the position enunciated by Fr Andrew is not incoherent: it’s far worse than that. It is coherent and it is, at the personal level, abuse and, at the political level, tyranny. That position says that one person or group has the right to say to another person or group that they have no right to their own opinions. It is also, more relevantly to these columns, radically anti-Christian.
No-one is saying you don’t have a right to your own opinion, only that you don’t have the automatic right to preach your opinion from the pulpit or (in extreme cases) hold clerical office and express certain opinions. Do you think clergy should be allowed to preach anti-miscegenationist views if that’s what they believe? How about advocating abolishing age of consent laws? Support for the Holocaust? I’m sure you draw the line somewhere, that you consider some views incompatible with Christian ministry. The only question is where.
I think the difference is that there is no credible theological insinuation that different races should not marry (Boaz and Ruth?)… no statement in Christian texts on age of consent to suggest it’s the role of the Church to define that… no advocacy of Holocaust that has theological credibility… BUT… There are texts in the scriptures that can very persuasively be cited to preach that God is opposed to man-man sex. That belief can be held, as an act of faith, and in all conscience, and a preacher can assert that view, not out of homophobia, but because the written… Read more »
Well, is homophobia abuse or not? Of course you have a right to your opinions, I can’t see anything in my original post suggesting you don’t. But nobody, self included, has a right not to have those opinions challenged. My point, if you go back and actually read the post, is that it is surely for an oppressed minority group to define what is prejudice against them, not members of the majority. To accept this needs a degree of humility on the part of the person who is not a member of a minority: it is uncomfortable but it is,… Read more »
“it is surely for an oppressed minority group to define what is prejudice against them”
or:
“it is surely for an oppressed minority group to define what they regard as prejudice against them” ?
(which is not quite the same thing)
To comment further, Father Andrew, please understand that I basically agree with the direction of what you say. I think it is really important to listen to the voiced experiences and perceived discrimination of minority groups. There is a saying I very much like: “understanding is a journey into the land of the other”. In my own studies on attitudes of healthcare staff towards trans patients, it became very apparent that an ethnographic approach centres on the actual voices and experiences of people who find themselves on the receiving end of discrimination. All that said, precision in language is important,… Read more »
I’m not even going to touch that, for reason explained in detail elsewhere: that word is not usable in rational discussion.
A point worth discussing, but not the point that was made earlier, which was that certain people had no right even to hold an opinion on such matters. (“…actually read the post…” — really? That’s fourth-form stuff.)
I would also add that allowing homophobic or transphobic teaching goes against the conscience of people like me. It’s impossible to salve all consciences – what matters is our duty to God.
I’m not quite sure what the scope of this comment is. What a given individual does or does not do or say is a matter for their own conscience. If you mean that you cannot conscientiously stay in the same room or in the same church as people whose teaching you find “homophobic or transphobic” that’s about the way in which your own beliefs affect your own actions. But are you suggesting that your own conscientiously held beliefs have a right to determine the thoughts, words or actions of other people? And if so, would you accept that the conscientiously… Read more »
What happens, though, when a vicar’s conscience prevents him from giving communion to a practicing gay man or woman? Or absolution after a confession? Or a funeral or burial in consecrated ground?
We’re an episcopally ordered church and ultimately excommunication – for that is what it is – is not within the gift of a priest. So a priest who refuses communion to a practicing gay man should refer the matter to the bishop. An absolute refusal (as against a conditional refusal) to give absolution would be a failure of the priest’s ordination mandate, and again brings it within the ambit of the bishop. Without the penitent being named, he should be given the opportunity to meet with his chief pastor. As for refusing a gay man a funeral or burial in… Read more »
I am clear that the bible teaches that marriage is for life. It teaches that it is exclusive. It teaches that it is between only two people. It teaches it is between a man and a woman. It teaches it is between humans only.
It is a fiction to describe me or my views as homophobic.
I recognise a set of valid criteria for marriage. You are simply intent on reckless defamation if you ignore the facts and seek to insist my view is based on malice regard just one criterion.
Peter, Whilst I don’t know you personally. I am very happy to accept that your own view on marriage etc. is not based on personal homophobia. But I would ask you to consider whether your conclusions are based on a traditional Christian interpretation of the biblical which is itself homophobic, and which only arrives at its conclusions by ignoring, distorting or mis-translating parts of the bible that challenge this interpretation. As I look around the church today I see so many people who are not personally anti-gay, but they are being handicapped by only having access to this traditional anti-gay… Read more »
(Continued from previous post) It is not possible to give a full overview of this scholarship in a text limited post, but a few examples may be helpful. There are various mentions of “cult prostitute” or “male temple prostitute” in the Hebrew scriptures. Leaving aside the question of what exactly the people involved understood of their actions, the question here is the translation from Hebrew to English. In Hebrew the relevant word is “Kadeshim” or “Kadesher”. This is based on the root Kadesh – Holy – as in “Be ye Holy as I am Holy”. So a Kadeshim is a… Read more »
Simon. I will not be able to do justice to all your comment and I recognise the time you have given to the analysis which you set out.
I agree that the interpretation of the bible is the fundamental issue.
I do not accept that the historical understanding is itself homophobic. That is to say that our Father in Heaven is homophobic which I reject as a defamation of His Name
I disagree with you about what the Bible, especially the Gospels say, but it IS homophobia if you assert your belief that same sex couples cannot marry without asserting everything else the Bible says about marriage equally strongly. So, no divorcees and most definitely nobody who has remarried. No use of contraceptives or other methods to avoid pregnancy since marriage is for procreation. So you need to question any couple who stop having children after two or three. Definitely no divorce. Wives must be submissive to their husbands. No sexual acts outside of marriage and no lustful thoughts (adultery) so… Read more »
Our Father in Heaven could not be clearer that He hates divorce.
I think some of your other points are stretching your argument a bit.
However, I entirely agree that all of the fundamentals of marriage are equally important.
“I think some of your other points are stretching your argument a bit.” How so? Malachi 2:15 God, not you, made marriage. His Spirit inhabits even the smallest details of marriage. And what does he want from marriage? Children of God, that’s what. So guard the spirit of marriage within you. Don’t cheat on your spouse. Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Deuteronomy 24:5 If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any… Read more »
You are taking each of the passages you quote out of their context and mis representing their actual meaning.
The argument is getting confused. It is, I think, well understood that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic law. But there is an important difference between actions and inclinations. We are all inclined towards sin, and we are all tempted to commit sinful acts. That is universal. There is, in some sense, no point in asking someone whether that’s true, because the answer is already known to be yes. There is point in asking someone what they do about it. But there’s a teaching on marriage which is harder than any mentioned so far: Matthew 22:30 in the resurrection… Read more »
You make some interesting points though I cannot see any confusion over the central issue. The fundamental issue is the acceptance of the historical biblical respect for the character of marriage. People can and do reject it and that is their choice. It is a fiction to claim the bible is ambiguous on the issue when it could not be clearer. It is also a fiction to impute malign intent to those who just hold to the historic position. If you reject the historic position on marriage you are rejecting biblical authority. You are doing neither more nor less than… Read more »
Let’s also not forget that the Bible doesn’t speak with one voice on the question of monogamy. If Genesis 2.24 is the controlling text in the Hebrew scriptures regarding marriage (which is what I used to teach), then it’s rather strange that (a) almost everyone in the rest of the Hebrew scriptures seems to ignore its monogamous aspect, and (b) no one in the rest of the Hebrew scriptures is ever condemned for ignoring this aspect of it.
It’s only possible to assess this argument with a certain amount of clarity about what you mean by “homophobia”. Many people use it as a simple “boo”-word, just expressing their dislike of opinions about sex and sexuality that they happen to disagree with. It seems to me there are numerous ways in which you might want to use the word. We’ll pass over the obvious primary meanings, which are a morbid fear of homosexual acts, desires or orientation, or of people exhibiting those things (that’s already six different things, by the way) which is clearly not how people today want… Read more »
That there are many sub-categories of homophobic beliefs and behaviour doesn’t make the word meaningless, or bullying (though the perpetrators of homophobia trying to claim they’re the victims here is a pretty clear example of gaslighting).
If you want a short summary, I’d say homophobia is when you treat (or advocate treating) people differently based on them falling in love with people of the same sex (or gender, depending on whether the homophobe is also transphobic). If you don’t like being accused of homophobia, you might want to consider not being homophobic.
Nobody on this website advocates treating people differently because of their sexuality. That is a non existent category
You want to prevent them getting married and, unless I’ve missed my guess, prevent them serving as priests.
I don’t want to prevent anybody from getting married. Marriage is defined in terms I have articulated previously.
The issue which is disputed is the basis for understanding marriage.
It is a disingenuous fiction to say the issue is prejudice on the basis of sexuality. Marriage is characterised by a set of boundaries. All of the boundaries matter. There is no distinction between the boundaries.
Accusing people of something that is completely untrue proves absolutely nothing
You’re playing with words. You’ve come up with a set of boundaries that you pretend have always been there (and that there are no others that have been considered just as important in other times and places) and use that as an excuse to stop people marrying. How are your views any different in character from those of anti-miscegenationists in 1950s Virginia? They could point to scriptures telling them not to marry outside their own people, but presumably you’ve managed to find a way to interpret those less broadly than they did.
Jo: “You want to prevent them getting married and, unless I’ve missed my guess, prevent them serving as priests.” Yes, but Peter opposes men getting married to each other, NOT because of hatred of gay people, but out of obedience to the authority of the Bible. I think Peter is right. If you believe in the authority of what the Bible teaches on this subject, then sorry, but its authors do not seem okay about man-man sex. By all means abandon the authority of the Bible on this subject, and take my approach: the Holy Spirit speaks to our God-given… Read more »
Susannah,
Your sense of grace is surely what we now need across the divide to a find a settlement
Peter
You don’t have to personally hate gay people to be homophobic, any more than you have to personally hate black people to be racist. If people want to argue that it’s right to be homophobic because (in their view) the Bible is homophobic they’re free to do that. What’s implausible is claiming that it can’t be homophobia because the Bible demands it. In any case, I don’t accept that the Bible offers universal condemnation of male-male sex. It arguably offers condemnation of it within a specific social context and particular expressions of it found within particular cultures. The desire to… Read more »
This whole discussion makes it more and more evident that the word “homophobia” is used not in any meaningful way, but merely as a catch-all boo-word to shut down discussion of a sensitive and difficult topic, leading to the counter-comment: if you don’t like being accused of intellectual bullying, you might want to consider not being an intellectual bully.
I explained what I mean by it, so it’s hard to see how it can not be meaningful. Unlike “intellectual bullying” which is simply being used as a shield to try and pretend that homophobic views are somehow to be treated as mere “opinion” on the same sort of level as the use of a maniple.
I explained what I mean by it, so it’s hard to see how it can not be meaningful. Unfortunately that’s exactly why it has not useful meaning. Everyone who uses this word appears to mean something different by it, so there’s no useful discussion to be had. Indeed, you yourself have used it two different ways in this single thread. As I say, the only commonalty in the ways in which the word is used at to convey that some opinion on homosexuality is different from that of the person using the word and the further imputation that that different… Read more »
Treating people differently based on who they fall in love with is irrational and absurd, and the practice of it is hateful even if the motivation is not.
I don’t believe I’ve used the term in different ways, perhaps you’d care to elaborate?
I don’t believe I’ve used the term in different ways, perhaps you’d care to elaborate? By all means. I gave more than 80 possible meanings and you described them as “sub-categories of homophobic beliefs and behaviour”. In the same comment, you wrote “homophobia is when you treat (or advocate treating) people differently based on them falling in love with people of the same sex”. These were not the same thing. Treating people differently based on who they fall in love with is irrational and absurd, and the practice of it is hateful even if the motivation is not. That is a personal… Read more »
I disagree, all the variations in homophobic belief and practice you outlined fall under the definition I gave.
A moment’s reflection suggests that the common restrictions are not based on who people are but whether both partners can give informed consent.
If you think that, we are clearly using a large number of words in radically different ways. But that goes to support my point. “Homophobia” is not in general being used as the name of a thing in the world which has a definition that we can all agree on. It is an expression of a subjective, personal emotional reaction which is used to shut off rational discussion.
Your point seems to be that you don’t like the implications of being homophobic so you’ll try and prevent the word being used. Racists don’t like being called racist either, and there are plenty of variations of racism too. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about racism.
If that’s your interpretation of my point then, as I say, we differ very radically on what words mean. For others, I’ll simply point out that when a discussion reaches the point of casting aspersions on other participants’ motives, that’s usually a good point to stop.
That’s where you started this thread of conversation, accusing me and others of bullying.
Am I the only one looking forward to Fr. Colin Coward’s opinion on the outcome of the meeting of several LLF contenders with the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace? One would hope that the proceedings might have been more conducive to the inner meaning of the words: ‘Living in Love and Faith’ than have so far been offered by ‘Head Office’ to a waiting public audience.
“the meeting of several LLF contenders with the Archbishop of Canterbury”
Just to clarify, Father Ron, they were not invited to meet the Archbishop, but to meet some bishops who are in the Next Steps Group.
I am very much looking forward to his opinion. I am also very confident that there are more than just the two of us. Personally I am expecting to be disappointed/enraged by the outcome of LLF. As a gay man and Christian in a same sex relationship, currently planning our marriage which will be held in our Methodist Church, I weep at the plight of my Anglican brothers and sisters who are denied this important life event. How so many clergy have the stomach to continue to be CofE clergy when they clearly don’t agree with the mumbled position of… Read more »
Ron, three members of the Changing Attitude England steering group were present on Friday, one representing another organisation in the morning. We have each written notes on the meeting – I haven’t yet shared mine with them – they are somewhat idiosyncratic. We are meeting this evening, Monday, and plan to blog on Tuesday. I’m still processing my intuitive reactions to and feelings about the meeting. It was good to be there and with the representatives of other organisations – that was very, very good.
I am a conservative evangelical. I am not a homophobe. I hold what I believe to be two convictions which I think are held by everybody on this site. The bishops have completely lost control and authority. A disorderly and chaotic collapse of the Church of England would be a terrible development. It is surely common ground between us all that a general settlement is needed. If it can be found it will be through networks of ordinary people on both sides – such as those of us who use this site – who agree to work together without rancour… Read more »
“I am a conservative evangelical. I am not a homophobe.” I agree with you on this point. People can oppose gay sex, not out of homophobia, but out of fidelity to what many Christians believe the Bible says. “The bishops have completely lost control and authority.” I don’t agree. I think it’s an overstatement. They have undertaken to work through the LLF process. We are in a hinterland period until that process is complete, including the discernment and action phases. “A disorderly and chaotic collapse of the Church of England would be a terrible development.” Obviously I agree with you… Read more »
I should have been clearer in observing that the bishops have lost control and authority over the long term direction of travel. Of course, you are right that they retain control over the immediate future. There are today many Church of England clergy pensioners who believe in the authority of the bible. There are also many clergy pensioners who rejected the authority of the bible during their ministries. Such “shared services” have always been accepted and utilised by clergy of all theological perspectives. I therefore do not think there is any necessity at all for us to endure the chaos… Read more »
I appreciate your measured and patient approach, Peter. I think I understand your position, which has maybe had cost and sacrifice in your life, but is a position of integrity and faith. I am glad that you, as a person with views that might be called ‘conservative’ and ‘evangelical’ if I’m not mistaken, post here – because it’s important voices like yours are here in the mix, to remind us all that faithful and socially conservative Christians are not some ‘other’ and ‘enemy’ somewhere ‘over there’, but are brothers and sisters in Christ, and integral to the Church of England.
‘There needs to be – and in my view will be – two separate jurisdictions with some set of pragmatic arrangement for shared services.’ I find this very sad. The one thing that many of my fellow-evangelicals demand a separate jurisdiction over is sex. Not the Trinity. Not the divinity and uniqueness of Christ. Not the theology of the Eucharist. But sex. I know what the reply will be. “It’s not just about sex – it’s about the authority of the Bible.” But that’s not true. Evangelicals reject the authority of the Bible when it comes to Jesus’ commands not… Read more »
It is a travesty to characterise the dispute as being just about sex. Or “one little point” as you put it.
It’s about marriage. That is the foundation of human society through all of time and across all the world
But marriage has not been the same throughout all time and across all the world. For example, most of the married people described in the Bible lived in polygamous marriages. Many men had concubines. The Torah allows Israelite men to forcibly marry prisoners of war. Also, to Paul it was a scandal that Jewish Christians would not sit down at table with Gentile Christians – it was a denial of the gospel. What do you think he would have said if he had heard that there were some Christians who though tit was okay to put on the uniform of… Read more »
Tim, you are conflating marriage and military service.
I am sympathetic to your position as a pacifist but you are not engaging in anything that can be described as biblical analysis.
OK. I suspect we’ll keep on talking past each other anyway, so I’m content to bow out.
“People can oppose gay sex, not out of homophobia, but out of fidelity to what many Christians believe the Bible says” Yes, if homophobia is a personality trait rather than a lived experience. But does that really make any difference? Look not at causes, but effects. I would suggest that a person’s motivation is really not the point here, it is the minority’s experience. It is possible to be actively continuing prejudicial practices against a minority without being motivated by that prejudice. I’m sure the vast majority of conservatives are not motivated by prejudice against LGBT people. But it’s still… Read more »
You are reducing everything to the level of feelings. I actually agree with your point that if my sensibilities are ruffled by you telling me I am homophobic that is really not the key issue. (It does however make discussion more difficult which I have said elsewhere is a mistake but that is not the fundamental issue) What matters is what is actually true but not with regard to my motivations or anybody’s experience. The issue is does God want us to understand ourselves in a specific way regardless of how we feel about what he expects. I am certain… Read more »
Firstly, I think that was a superb piece of writing by Fr Andrew. “The issue is does God want us to understand ourselves in a specific way regardless of how we feel about what he expects. I am certain the answer to that question is yes” The issue isn’t, however, how you understand yourself. The problem is when people project their understanding onto others and expect them to conform. That’s what’s happening with same sex marriage. To take a different example, I believe that marriage and ordination are incompatible and believe that the Bible very clearly says that. Should I… Read more »
You have altered what I said. I did not say anything at all about people imposing their own understanding on others.
The issue is biblical revelation and truth. How we read the bible is the fundamental issue.
I accept others on this site have a different view on biblical authority and interpretation.
However can we please stop turning it into a “straw man” argument that people like me just have a weakness for telling other people what to do.
That is not the issue
I think we have ‘definition problems’ here, Father Andrew. ‘Homophobia’ is the individual or collective mindset of a person or people. It is not the effect, it is not the experience of the recipient. Now, we could of course create a different word for that hurtful receptivity and feelings of other people. Clearly homophobia does not describe them (that would mean they hate and fear themselves!). The clear root meaning of the word ‘homophobia’ is fear of homosexual people, which has also been understood as how that fear can be expressed in hatred and irrational dislike. But the word applies… Read more »
I am sorry but while you may not see it as homophobia many of us do see it as homophobia and are entitled to call it out. As I explained it is homophobia – prejudice against same sex relationships – to impose a literal interpretation of the Bible in relation to same sex marriage but not be as vigorous about the rest of the Bible teaching on marriage. So, that means campaigning to remove the licence of divorced clergy, it means telling wives that they must be subservient to their husbands. Pick’n’mix reading of the Bible, if it selectively disadvantages… Read more »
It would good if people who suffer a failed marriage were to relinquish authority they might hold within a congregation – certainly for an extended period. There is nothing particularly radical about that proposition.
You’re not entitled to stipulate that to be sincere I should now campaign to have such people removed from office. We live in a fallen world. I cannot take on the job of correcting every fault.
Subservience is obviously not part of God’s design of marriage. Nobody claims otherwise.
Isn’t the whole point of the CofE having a “headship” bishop that some people claim women must be subservient to men?
Nobody thinks women should be subservient to men.
Ephesians 5:22-24 “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” I agree, but if the Bible’s instructions for marriage are being read literally this is far clearer than any prohibition of loving same sex marriages. There are three possible approaches 1. Read the Bible literally and apply things which are problematic like Ephesians… Read more »
Why did you stop at verse 24 ?? Verse 25: “husbands love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”
Husbands are to sacrifice themselves for their wives. There is no subservience of women to men. Rather, husbands are make themselves servants of their wives.
Given the different interpretations of scripture evident in these discussions concerning the next steps in the LLF process, it is becoming self evident that a radical solution needs to be sought involving a change in the structure of the Church of England to accommodate the different interpretations of scripture. Just a thought.
Why does it require a change of structure to accommodate these particular differences in interpretation? Why not do what other churches have done and simple allow those who personally object to equal marriage not to have to conduct them, much as the CofE currently does for those who object to the remarriage of divorcees?
The Church of England is an established church and straight couples have a right to marriage in their parish church. I believe that’s a different scenario to other churches which have adopted a ‘muddle through’ mixed approach. It’s also worth noting that Canada has a ban on conversion therapy and Scotland is likely to get one, but the chance of Truss introducing one is small making it more important in England to put constraints on teaching than in either of those countries. For those reasons I think England is a special case and agree with Bob that a formal structure… Read more »
Your suggestion would not work I fear as it is not acceptable to those who believe that teaching the current doctrine of marriage within the C of E to be homophobic and a serious safeguarding issue.
Separate structures within the CofE wouldn’t prevent those risks, though, unless you’re envisaging some sort of health warning to be displayed prominently by churches and clergy availing themselves of the proposed structures?
In terms of separate structures I was thinking more in terms of separate provinces within the C of E, with separate dioceses, bishops, ordination etc. On the issue of displaying health warnings, I don’t think those supporting SSM will accept that.
I think clear labelling of churches (both physically on/in the buildings, and electronically on websites, social media pages, etc.) is highly desirable right now, before we get any new arrangements.
I think you have probably misunderstood Bob, though he may correct me.
The point is those who want change will want to label orthodox churches as a safeguarding hazard.
You rather prove his point
Being opposed to equal marriage is not orthodoxy. It’s a twisting of the Gospel and the historic faith to make it a litmus test.
Churches who want to bully people not called to it into celibacy are a safeguarding risk. You try asking LGBT Christians how safe they feel going into a CofE church they don’t know.
Orthodoxy simply means holding to historic understanding. It is part of the general vocabulary.
You disagree with it which is up to you but you cannot take control of the English language. Justin Welby called for a “radical new inclusion”.
You cannot be a radical and orthodox at the same time. It is simply making a nonsense of language
Orthodoxy is “correct doctrine”, not “historic doctrine”. And the indicators of orthodoxy for Anglicans are the creeds and those ecumenical councils (the first four) that included the whole church. I realise creating ever-expanding lists of doctrine that have to be adhered to to be considered “sound” is something of an evangelical hobby but such a practice is not orthodoxy and, in fact, is not Biblical.
You over state the matter. I suggest you visit the Cambridge English Dictionary where you will find orthodoxy defined as the historic understanding.
Christians who hold to the historic understanding are perfectly entitled to call themselves orthodox.
The idea anybody is entitled to dictate permissible vocabulary is ridiculous
The problem is that people on both sides of this disagreement hold to the historic understanding of the Christian faith as laid out in the Creeds and by the ecumenical councils. Claiming orthodoxy only for the anti-gay faction of the church is to frame the affirming part of the church as heterodox or heretical, and that is clearly the intention. Not every belief that has been long held by substantial parts of the church is part of the Christian faith. For much of history Christians believed that slavery was permissible, and found Biblical warrant for that view in both the… Read more »
You imply you cannot be certain I would regard the slave trade as a mistake.
It is sophistry to infer somebody with whom you disagree has morally repugnant views on the grounds you were just inviting them to be clear on the matter
You are not engaging in dialogue.
I assume you don’t think slavery is permissible, but I’ve been wrong before about the positions people committed to Biblical literalism hold. It was not intended to imply you supported slavery, only to allow for the possibility, as there are some conservative evangelicals who maintain (for example) that slavery as practised by Philemon was ok because it was distinct from the chattel slavery practised in the US. I’ve no way of knowing whether you’re one of them. Also, to be blunt, I’ve made it very clear I think your views on equal marriage are morally repugnant. If I thought you… Read more »
Are you suggesting that there is an enduring historical understanding in the Church of equality for same-sex marriage?
This could be right. After all, there were structural arrangements when women’s ordination came in. So why not an arrangement of some kind over sexuality? I’m not saying that’s my position, Bob, but it’s something the bishops may look at. There are clearly at least two theological positions on sexuality in the Church of England, both supported (and held in faith and conscience) by significant numbers of people. Therefore, as you say, it all points to accommodating different interpretations. We need to be able to get on with all the other pastoral duties of the Church because the needs are… Read more »
But to clearly say that only two issues (ordination of women, and sex and marriage) are so important that English Anglicans can’t share the same structures, but have to have completely separate jurisdictions – to me, that’s such a sad commentary over people’s priorities in the C of E. I mean, speaking personally, if I was going to pick an issue, I’d pick the presence of national or political flags in churches – the abomination of desolation standing where it should not. (my tongue is very slightly in my cheek, of course, although to be honest it does really bother… Read more »
Marriage is the foundational social structure of all human societies throughout all of human history.
How can it possibly be less important than other issues
I am repeatedly faced in these discussions with the situation in which something I have said is altered and the altered version is then used as the basis for an entirely spurious attempt at a “rebuttal”. The general claim that is being made is that The Holy Spirit is moving in new and radical ways to bring in a new understanding of humanity. I cannot think of a greater or more serious claim as the basis for calls for change. So one of the ways The Holy Spirit is bringing about this new and radical insight into humanity is by… Read more »
Comments on this post are now closed.