The Church of England Evangelical Council has published some new documents which give further detail on what it thinks should now happen in the Church of England.
John Dunnett, CEEC Director of Strategy and Operations sets out CEEC’s position in A Brief Overview of CEEC’s Position Post Living in Love and Faith.
Keeping Faith: Every Voice Matters is a 6 page PDF document in which:
CEEC calls on EVERY evangelical church, member and leader to:
share with your bishop(s) your dismay at the decision of the General Synod to ‘green light’ the bishops’ proposed Prayers of Love and Faith to affirm and celebrate relationships outside marriage between one man and one woman, which will often be sexually active
take appropriate actions in your context in response to this development
make sure that any action you take is known about within your local church and by CEEC (see next page for CEEC contact details)…
A slightly older document about “Writing to your bishop” has this:
Download our simple tips and ideas for your letter.
You can find the names and email addresses of all the bishops here.
From the CEEC “Brief Overview….”: “However, If clergy have to actively decline an invitation to conduct an affirmation, celebration or blessing of a same-sex partnership, they are likely to receive substantial negative attention on social media and in their local communities. You mean they would have to actually deal with the consequences of their actions? Heaven forfend! Does the courage of their convictions end when faced with public disapproval? And if they receive “substantial negative attention….in their local communities,” doesn’t that suggest that the local community–which as priests in an established national church they are supposed to be tending–is not… Read more »
Surely as ‘orthodox’ evangelicals they would leap at the chance to explain their fundamentalist hermeneutic of Scripture? How can you be a closet orthodox Christian?
Imagine yourself reversing that argument and you’ll see how unpleasant it is.
Why? As I understand evangelical orthodoxy proclaiming your faith and mission are central tenets?
‘Your faith’…or merely your own point of view?
Protesters against discrimination of gays have dealt with the consequences for decades (if not longer) and, in some places, continue to do so to this day. I presume “Stonewall” means something to you? In my own hometown of Staten Island, NY, the organizing committee of the St. Patrick’s Day parade still bans gay groups from marching.
What a novel idea. Because LGBTQIA+ people never experience public disapproval of their lives and loves?
[snark]
Could it possibly be that there could be a few good evangelical Christians who would have been happier if the General Synod and the bishops had voted for equal marriage and not merely taken in refuge in a fudge?
Am I being too optimistic?
John Dunnett’s position paper is pretty weak, isn’t it? It contains no ecclesial rationale or theological justification and really amounts to no more than a demand that the Church of England should re arrange itself so that those who share his definition of ‘orthodoxy’ can stand aloof from those who don’t. Why that would serve any gospel purpose is left unexamined. So far as I know there is nothing about the existence of people who see things differently from ourselves that makes it harder to ‘keep the faith’. The Church of England has always been a very broad church in… Read more »
“John Dunnett’s position paper is pretty weak,…”
Quite so. It’s also hard to claim that your wishes are measured and reasonable while presenting them as demands backed by threats. To my mind it is severely misjudged and is likely to alienate some who might otherwise have supported their aims.
It’s a briefing paper not an analysis.
Your own critique fails the basic requirement to actually respect the context and purpose of the author of a document.
Once again, conservatives are feeling victimized because they are being criticized.
I made no reference at all to a sense of being victimised.
I simply pointed out the shallow thinking involved in treating a position paper with a set of action points as if it were an analysis. The two types of document are not the same.
The first rule of valid commentary is make sure you have actually read the subject material and grasped the author’s purpose.
Once more CEEC assumes it speaks for all evangelicals and evangelical churches in the C of E. It ceased doing that a long time ago.
Quite so, Charles. I’m an evangelical and it certainly doesn’t speak for me.
CEEC speaks for these Evangelical Organisations, who all have members on the CEEC council.
Christianity Explored
Church Society
CMS
Count Everyone In
CPAS
Crosslinks
Fellowship of Word and Spirit
Fulcrum
JAEC
Latimer Trust
Living Out
New Wine
ReNew
The Junia Network
Nowhere does it claim to represent all evangelicals.
Have to say that CEEC call has minded me to write to my Diocesan Bishop, but not in support of them. My bishop is a spineless man, who is in serious need of encouragement to stand up to the ConEvo brigade, and to be true to himself.
Interesting to read your comments, Francis. I’ve been thinking similar things. For years I’ve taken a very scathing view of Peter Tatchell’s actions when he outed Bishops he believed to be gay, all those years ago. I still don’t believe people who are gay but choose to keep the fact to themselves should be outed, but I have a great deal more sympathy than I had with the frustration that led Mr Tatchell to adopt his position. Through the intervening years I’ve met a few Bishops who are gay but still take the ‘party line’ on sexuality, and many others… Read more »
I too know gay bishops and clergy who say one thing publicly and live a different private life. Most of them are diligent about the daily office and saying Mass and yet they are able to make this accommodation in their hearts and minds. It cannot be a healthy situation spiritually or psychologically; one of those I mention is a non sober (reasonably functioning) alcoholic. The combination of lying publicly and to oneself must eat at your soul. As the Irish would say: desperate, truly desperate.
There’s a confusion here between feeling attracted to people of the same sex, and acting on those feelings.
I saw these and said half-out-loud, “Ooh, fantastic.” I really was looking forward to seeing concrete proposals to resolve the conflict. Instead it is sadly mostly about resistance. They suggest a new province for liberals. That needs to be a non-starter. What has become clear through this discussion is that sacramentally the couple marry themselves and the wedding service is about blessings and introducing the couple to the community. Evangelicals have called for the proposals to be theologically coherent. That therefore has to mean that every same sex couple has the opportunity to receive the blessings in front of their… Read more »
They have not “overlooked” the issue of safety.
Orthodox Christians categorically reject the slur that the historic doctrine of the church is a risk to anybody.
I’m an orthodox Christian and the risk to LGBT people of abuse dressed up as “historic doctrine” is clear. The attempt to conflate “orthodox” and “anti-gay” is transparent and insulting, both to the orthodox Christians who disagree with you and to the faith itself when you reduce orthodoxy to a litmus test about sexuality.
And therein lies the problem. If you refuse to see that what you are doing or saying is harmful, then you just keep on doing it.
It’s not a slur. “The historic doctrine of the church” is being used to justify conversion “therapy” and the spiritual and psychological harm that inflicts.
Hi Jeremy, thanks for your comment. I think this discussion about safeguarding minors is extremely important so I hope you don’t mind me jumping in. In my experience from the conservative side there is full agreement that conversion therapy is wrong. I have never come across anyone who would agree with you saying that the historic doctrine of the church should be used to justify conversion therapy so I’m not sure it’s the live and prevalent issue you are making it out to be. It also doesn’t follow that because some people somewhere might use the historic doctrine to justify… Read more »
I have never used the historic doctrine to justify conversion therapy. I have never seen or heard one piece of evidence that it has been used to justify conversion therapy in conservative evangelical churches.
Orthodoxy could not be clearer. The only conversion known to the New Testament is conversion to faith in Christ.
Hi Peter, I agree that the conversion that the New Testament teaches is conversion to faith in Jesus Christ. And I give thanks for that, as I don’t doubt you do too. Having said that, repentance is stressed as a part of conversion. In other words, there’s a package that accompanies conversion, in terms of turning away from previous sins, and repudiating sinful living as we live out our conversion. I think that’s where a problem lies, in the experience of some LGBT people. Now you may not have witnessed outright conversion therapy – though I was offered such therapy… Read more »
A little late, Susannah, but your description of the problems young LGBT folks face resonates – long term single straights can often face the same stresses as regards serving God and being themselves. Those churches also make it impossible for single straights to have any guilt-free relief from their sexual longings too. Some writers and speakers seem to think Christian conversion emasculates us – they never mention the loneliness and pain that we’re expected to simply accept as the ‘price’ we pay for salvation.
Beg your pardon?
The historic doctrine of the Church has REALLY been (and still is) profoundly harmfull to sexual minorities!
Unless you redefine such doctrine the way it suits you on this discussion – then it will no longer be “historic” …
Hi José, forgive me for commenting again but I really want to understand this view as I think allegations about improperly safeguarding minors are extremely serious.
Would you mind please elaborating why you believe that the historic doctrine (presumably here meaning that sexual activity is reserved for marriage and that marriage is only between one man and one woman) is profoundly harmful to sexual minorities?
Is it similarly harmful to unmarried heterosexual people who, for whatever reason, are unable to marry?
“minors” are not the same thing as “minorities,” surely?
Christianity has undoubtedly been extremely harmful to minorities of all sorts for many centuries. The very long history of Christian anti-Semitism is a case in point. In the case of homosexual people, Christians wielding power have been their biggest persecutors in the West for many centuries: surely that is beyond doubt?
Sorry Mark, yes of course minors and minorities are not the same thing. Apologies if I have jumped into the wrong thread here but there was a separate discussion about the teaching of the tradition doctrine of the Church of England posing a safeguarding risk to minors and vulnerable adults. I was trying to understand why some view that as serious enough to warrant a safeguarding allegation, and asked José to explain his view on the matter. You may or may not be right about the harm Christians have caused; i might quibble with whether it is “Christianity” itself that… Read more »
Kate, I am not sure the point you make about my safety is all that persuasive. I have been involved in youth ministry for years in churches that would happily say the CEEC speaks for us. I have honestly never heard the slightest hint of any teaching that seeks to persuade anyone to suppress their sexual orientation. Maybe it happens elsewhere, but in my experience that just hasn’t been the case. I wonder whether you might be equating teaching about sexual restraint (which I certainly have heard) with suppression of orientation? Perhaps I have misunderstood, if so please could you… Read more »
The leading conservative evangelical voice in this country is Vaughan Roberts. He lives with same sex attraction.
We would have him as our bishop tomorrow if the choice was with conservative evangelicals.
Your experience reflects the biblical fact that what matters is sexual restraint for everybody.
Do evangelicals realise how both funny and insulting “living with same-sex attraction” sounds? It’s funny that such people can’t admit to being gay. But it’s insulting in the way it sounds like a physical or mental handicap, like living with a club foot, or enduring some terrible mental disorder. I’m aware evangelicals don’t like themselves to be defined by their sexuality. That’s why it’s funny they won’t admit to having one- apart from “having to live with it”!
I don’t really mind if someone is lay, so long as they are not a lay reader, but if someone is ordained (or a lay reader) then it is pastorally inappropriate language because of the potential impact on others.
So you would accept the right of lay members of the congregation to express traditional views on marriage? But those with a pastoral responsibility would have to give up that right?
Peter, you talk about “same sex attraction” as if it was a disability. You suggest that it is commendable that Vaughan Roberts should deny his God given sexuality because it is a sin. Celibacy can be an honourable calling but not because it is a rejection of a God given capacity for sexual love.
You completely disregard the context of my comment.
Colin Coward had published a chilling video saying conservatives view progressives as a contamination and then goes onto to say progressives should reverse the sentiment – and treat conservatives as a contamination.
Do people no longer know any history ?
This kind of language is absolutely indefensible and should never be spoken in relation to human beings.
I referenced Vaughan Roberts to illustrate the preposterous nature of the slur against conservatives.
To be fair, I think Vaughan Roberts is entitled to live a celibate life as a calling if that’s what he believes… just as nuns or monks may. The problem begins if you generalise your calling to everyone else with gay or lesbian sexuality. I honour sisters in the convent I share in fellowship with, for the fidelity of their lives and living out their vocation. In the same way I honour Vaughan Roberts, who I find intellectually coherent, decent, and devoted to God.
I think we all need to ask ourselves where same sex love comes from ? Is it the work of the devil ? Is it a sin ? WHY are people in the World with a need to sexually love someone of their own gender ? As far as I know the Bible provides no answer to this fundamental question. My personal experience of gay clergy tells me that same sex love is most definitely a gift from God. It’s not that gay clergy can minister to us in spite of their same sex sexuality, their sexuality is a great… Read more »
Thanks for your coherent answer, David.
I think it’s rather disingenuous to ignore the difference between “no sex with the person you love until you’re married” and “no sex with the person you love ever because they’re of the same sex as you”. The latter asks a great deal more than “restraint”.
I am not saying there is no difference, Jo, I’m questioning the view that not having sex is unsafe or harmful. Do you believe it is, and if so, why?
My observation is just that the young people that Kate is (rightly) wanting to safeguard in my experience seem to think that sexual restraint is a wise way to live.
Even St Paul recognised that sex (within marriage) was the better option for some. Some are called to celibacy, others to marriage, and denying fulfilment to the latter is harmful to them. Nobody (outside the Shakers) would think of demanding lifelong sexual abstinence from opposite sex couples, because we recognise the role of sex within a relationship (“… that the joy of their bodily union may strengthen the union of their hearts.”) To live without sex is not in itself harmful or unsafe, but to make that a demand laid upon a category of people not called to it is… Read more »
Thanks for the replies Jo and José, it’s helpful to hear these ideas and consider them. I haven’t heard this language of calling applied to sexual abstinence before so I hope you don’t mind me asking some follow up questions. I don’t understand the difference being called to celibacy and simply being unmarried – please could you elaborate? It seems to me that anyone who finds themselves unmarried, by choice, by opportunity, or by circumstance is called to celibacy. You seem to be saying that lifelong sexual abstinence for anyone in that position would be wrong or damaging unless they… Read more »
For some (few) people complete abstinence from sex is OK. For most people (hetero, homo, bi, whatever) isn’t. For these, imposed abstinence from sex is a curse. Celibacy is a call, a kherygma – not a burden.
All this is obvious. To the people who deny this (and refraining from asking directly personal questions), I suggest them to think about their teenage daughters and sons. Practically, earthly, both feet on the ground.
Thanks for the reply José. As I’ve said above this idea of calling applied to celibacy is new to me so I appreciate your responses. You seem to be saying that imposed abstinence is a curse, and that for all but a select few not having sex is not okay – presumably you mean that it’s not realistic and it’s harmful to them. Is not having opportunity to marry a kind of ‘imposed abstinence’, or is it a call to celibacy? What if someone doesn’t feel called to celibacy but for whatever reason hasn’t had opportunity to marry? It seems… Read more »
As I have said before on this thread, I have no problem with teaching sexual restraint. The problem comes when you teach sexual restraint because someone is gay, and that includes teaching that sex outside marriage is wrong if you also prevent gay Christians from marrying. It’s the linkage of the two that is the problem, teaching gay => lifelong celibacy. It is harmful. There have been suicides and plenty of those pressured into celibacy because they are gay have said how much it harmed them. The harm is established fact. It needs to stop. If mature adults, acting with… Read more »
Hi Kate, thanks again for engaging with this. The thing I can’t square is those people, straight, bi, or gay, who for whatever reason don’t have the opportunity to marry. I have a dear friend who has wished for many years to marry, who doesn’t want to remain celibate and has made no such free, willing, and joyful sacrifice, but has not had the opportunity to marry. She is by no means an isolated case. Is she harmed by teaching that sex outside of marriage is wrong? Is she being pressured into celibacy? Does it represent a safeguarding risk that… Read more »
Hmmm… she is not being told that her longing for sexual intimacy is wrong, sinful, and abhorrent to God. I think it’s the interface between trying to please God, yet having perfectly decent longings for sex with someone they love – or may love in the future – that creates a really jarring disconnect psychologically. Yes, there are many people who don’t find a lifelong partner. That can obviously be really sad in their lives, or it may not be. They can still understand that there’s nothing inherently wrong with their sexual desires and longings, should a right person come… Read more »
Yes, this is the distinction. It is telling one group of people “keep it in your pants until you are married, when you can have sex as much as you and your partner want. If this marriage ends through death or divorce, you can get married again and have more sex.” It is telling the other group of people: “keep it in your pants until death, because having sex with a person you love will always 100% morally wrong for you, because that person is of your own gender. In practical terms, this means that marriage or another long-term committed… Read more »
And to carry on at length… How many heterosexual men or women are there are who, feeling within them the capacity for a deep, true, romantic and sexual love would say “Well, I love Katie/David and she/he loves me, we’d have a wonderful life together. But it’s better to be celibate, so I’m not going to marry her/him. Instead I’ll be single for the next 50 years because that’s a higher calling.” A few, humanity contains many people and ways of being. But this is certainly not the majority of heterosexual people. The majority of straight people do not think,… Read more »
Thanks Jo, good reply. That’s a helpful comment, perhaps restraint was an unhelpful word. I have tried to talk of abstinence or celibacy in other replies as these seem to be the words others are using here. As to your point, yes I agree that they are not the same and one possibly might require a great deal more than restraint compared to the other. But there are many reasons you might not be able to marry the person you love, whatever your sexual orientation. What if they are already married, for example? Is it harmful and a safeguarding risk… Read more »
If someone falls in love with someone already married, there is harm (and indeed sin) involved in pursuing that relationship. However, it is by no means certain that they will never fall in love with someone else, so the prospect of a fulfilling, lifelong relationship remains. An individual may, in the course of their life, not find someone mutually compatible (however defined) to share their life with, but that is very different from saying that they are forbidden from pursuing a relationship if they do, not least because in the former case (even into old age) there can always be… Read more »
Thanks, this was a great response and helped me understand this position much better. Do you mind if I try to boil it down? It sounds like it hinges on the possibility or not of having sex in the future, or as you put it, whether there can be hope. So if I understand what you are saying rightly, you think it is a safeguarding risk to teach children that they shouldn’t have ever have sex, but that it is not if you are saying they shouldn’t have sex only temporarily, even if it transpires that they never do because… Read more »
Such a good reply, Jo. There is a huge difference between a misfortune of someone not finding the right partner, and a whole category of decent people being told they are required to stay celibate and deny their potential and capacity for marriage, sexual intimacy, devotion, care. When such a requirement is imposed on all gay and lesbian people as doctrine, repressing their sexual loveliness, and calling their nascent relationships sinful if they are expressed with sexual tenderness and intimacy… …that is just creepy. And it’s little surprise that millions of people in our country today (not least the young… Read more »
Hi Susannah, I’m not trying to be wilfully obstructive but I haven’t yet understood the huge difference between not having sex because you are not married and not having sex because you are a gay or lesbian person. I appreciate that must be very frustrating and I’m grateful for your patience and the gracious way you respond. It seems to me that almost everything you have expressed here applies perfectly well to those who are unable to marry through lack of opportunity. For example, it might apply to any teenager of any sexual orientation who wants to have sex but… Read more »
I just think that for most people sexuality is a blessing and a good thing. It enriches inside a committed relationship. It expresses tenderness to the person you love in a uniquely intimate way. It brings joy. And after sex you may feel in touch with yourself, in a physical way, linking emotional well-being, givenness, and internal sense of identity. So I see sexuality as a huge blessing that deepens people’s lives. So if someone does not have a partner, through bereavement, or the difficulty in finding someone who feels right, or because you’re taught as a gay person you’re… Read more »
If someone teaches that BECAUSE someone is gay that they should refrain from sex then that is potentially harmful and shouldn’t be taught in front of minors or vulnerable adults. It’s very different to saying that all Christians should ideally be celibate. It’s that ‘because’ which is problematic because it makes people ashamed of their sexual orientation.
The Church of England in its historic doctrine does not claim that anybody should refrain from sex because they are gay. That is an entirely fictional doctrine.
Everybody should refrain from sex if they are not married. It’s a different doctrine
But if you deny marriage to a gay couple, isn’t that fundamentally the same thing?
Distinction without a difference so long as you forbid same sex couples to marry.
Such distinction is chemicaly pure hypocrisy (added to homophobia). It is as such perceived by the larger public – and rightly so. Homophobia may be an intellectual error. Hypocrisy is a character default. When in Portugal same sex marriage was approved in Parliament, 2010, a demochristian MP who opposed the change said that the Civil Code didn’t forbid a gay man or a lesbian woman to marry … They just had to choose someone of the oposite sex. These words got general and deserved scorn. In your words and in the MP’s, on ne fait que jongler avec des mots… Read more »
Jesus had no time for such semantics and neither do I. You know that there is no way for gay people to be anything but celibate according to the teaching of the orthodox.
It’s not semantics. The issue is the definition of marriage.
There is a fundamental conflict over the definition of marriage which has to be faced but it is not about homophobia which is a reprehensible slur that is constantly thrown around in Thinking Anglicans.
It is about homophobia because Conservative Evangelicals have consistently opposed every move to end legal discrimination against gay people in recent years. They opposed an equal age of consent – George Carey when Archbishop wrote me a great long letter about how it would mean the end of all family life and lead to an increase in child abuse; they opposed civil partnerships – only Bishop Richard Harries of Oxford supported them in the Lords, despite the mendacious retrospective claim that the C of E was in favour of them… It has not just been about same-sex marriage at all,… Read more »
Self-hating homosexuals tend to be more homophobic than heterosexual men (and let’s face it, this is mostly a problem created by and fuelled by men). Closeted Anglo-Catholic queens there are, but they don’t have to hide in quite the same way as they are more accepted by their part of the church. But to be a conservative evangelical and to know yourself to be homosexual (or same-sex attracted, or what you will) is to be in a terrible bind. There are more of them who have married women and try to be straight than we realise. The psychological strain is… Read more »
Absolutely: well put!
If it quacks, it’s a duck. You can make this about whatever you like to please your semantic self, Peter, but the fact is that you are erecting barriers to LGBT+ people ever having normal healthy married relationships (and don’t start on the ‘But God says so’ line; there are lots of other ways of reading the Bible and the tradition – you choose to read it the way you do). Cut it whichever way you like – it’s homophobic. And when it isn’t, we’ll let you know.
Precisely.
Thanks Kate, I think I understand your position better now. I think I hear you saying that it isn’t sexual abstinence that is harmful, it’s connecting abstinence to sexual orientation that is harmful. I totally agree with you that no one should be (or made to be) ashamed of their sexual orientation. If someone teaches that BECAUSE someone is unmarried, for whatever reason, that they should refrain from sex – is that something potentially harmful that should not be taught to minors and vulnerable adults? If not, why not? Some would say that teaching that sex is for marriage is… Read more »
I am a faithful Christian who is single and celibate. I do not have a calling to celibacy. I have friends who do. They are happy, or at least content and fulfilled, being single. I have tried to convince myself I am the same. I am not. I do not have a calling to celibacy; it’s purely circumstance and the fact I have not been in a relationship for several years and do not want to engage in casual sex. I am looking to be in a relationship and indeed to marry, but have not yet succeeded; maybe I will… Read more »
Hi George, thanks so much for your moving and heartfelt comment. I agree with much of what you have said and have dear friends in your situation; I am not unmoved by your position. My discussion with Kate has been whether requiring someone in your position to not have sex is abusive and harmful. You have shared that it is extremely hard to bear, and a great wound, but that nevertheless you seek to refrain from sexual activity until marriage. I think that is a deeply honourable and commendable position and sacrifice. I don’t want to put words in your… Read more »
I agree with Kate. I would teach that sexual activity needs to be mutual and consensual but would not dream of attempting to restrict others beyond this. My own situation has taught me the humility to realise both that sexual relationships are extremely important to us as human beings, and that they are sacred ground – they matter so much that I wouldn’t dream of encroaching on someone else’s unless I had good reason to believe it was abusive or non-consensual in some way. And, I have been around in the church long enough to have seen some really awful… Read more »
Hi George, thanks for sharing more about your view and experience. Forgive me but I think that’s a new view to those expressed previously here so just want to check whether we are talking about the same thing. Adulterous relationships are mutual and consensual, would you want to restrict those? What about sexual activity outside marriage where it is mutual, consensual, non abusive etc, e.g. for those who are cohabiting in a loving sexual relationship? I’m trying to understand what constitutes the safeguarding risk as it’s a very serious allegation; you say you agree with Kate about that. Would you… Read more »
I join you in thanking George for being willing to share such a personal experience. I do fear, though, that you are putting words in Kate’s mouth as I read Kate as being clear that the objection is to teaching lifelong, compulsory celibacy for gay men and lesbians. George’s situation, deeply unpleasant though it is, could come to a joyous end at any point. There is a broader question about the way that some evangelical subcultures can end up pushing young people into marriage in order to be able to have sex, and whether the spiritual fruit of those relationships… Read more »
Thanks Jo, and apologies Kate if I have misrepresented your view here. I have appreciated hearing more about the distinctions you make between those unable to marry as they wish due to opportunity and those, in the traditional view, unable to marry as they wish due to orientation. I do not think the distinction is as wide as it is claimed, which was the point I was trying to make here, but I apologise if I misrepresented you. I have responded more fully in another comment to this discussion but just to say I share your concern about anyone being… Read more »
That sounds familiar. I’ve known a few instances of church leaders pushing young couples into marriage because they considered the new sense of ‘responsibility’ would make them – particularly the men involved – ‘grow up’. Typically the marriages lasted 18 months before collapsing. My wife said that people in one particular denomination tend to marry young basically so they can have sex. And, sadly, I’ve known pressure to marry because of outdated ‘headship’ doctrines being bandied about. Not at all helpful. And, equally, neither is the other church culture – that, although you’re ‘not missing anything’ by not being married,… Read more »
Thank you for this, George. It needed to be said, and heard. Celibacy is only a good thing if it is a specific vocation that enables a person to flourish. For others it must feel more like a misfortune, and diminution of their lives. Thank you again for your honesty and the point that you make.
The current rhetoric of celibacy among those who call themselves same-sex attracted is that it’s not a gift or a calling, it’s ‘martyrdom’. I think that’s a shift that should be noted.
YES
CEEC want a settlement as do a good number of ordinary conservative evangelicals such as myself. It will only happen if sufficient numbers in Synod – on both sides of the divide – decide their core aims are better served through a settlement rather than continued conflict. The Bishops have a key role as mediators but clearly cannot impose a settlement. Neither progressives or conservatives are in a position to dictate terms – the numbers are just too close. It would come down to each party securing their own fundamental goals and living with the fact the other party will… Read more »
I’m out of this discussion, but it’s fair obvious to me time is on progressives’ side.
This is perhaps why ConEvan are calling now for a settlement based on “visible differentiation”.
It remains to see if progressives are sufficiently patient to wait five, ten years. On their shoes, I would be: ten years is a lot of time in a person’s life, but in Church life is less than the time to suck an asparagus. Impatience is not an argument.
Progressives in Synod will not accept visible differentiation in the form of a third province, either for conservative evangelicals to opt into or for liberals to be placed (as the Dunnett paper from November 2022 suggests). So the CEEC may as well stop pushing that dead horse, it’s going nowhere. If there are other proposals for structural arrangements other than the 3rd Province I’m all ears. I recognise that some structural differentiation already exists for complementarian evangelicals through the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, I’m sure he would welcome those conservative evangelical parishes that feel sufficiently disjointed from their diocesan. What more… Read more »
“Which in this instance is the progressives, and will become more so as time goes by.”
The way this is stated it sounds like a law of gravity.
I’m curious how this can be proven, and thus stated in this manner?
Your premise is that progressives have time on their side. That is an act of faith.
You also ignore the Anglican Communion. English Bishops will not be relaxed about the developments since Synod across the world.
If progressives block a settlement it will not happen. On that, at least, we agree.
Quite why you think that you serves progressives is a mystery.
a very logical question here is where does the New Bishop of Ebbsfleet, himself a Conservative Evangelical come in here? If these Evangelicals decided to go into Schism, or join AMIE under Bishop Andy Lines or join the Free Church of England, it could put Bishop Robert Munroas a new Bishop finding his feet in the reform constituency and the See of Ebbsfleet in an invidious situation and could very quickly render his position redundant as well as untenable before he has had much time to get his feet Episcopally under the table in Reform parishes within the See of… Read more »
Complementarians for whom the Bishop of Ebbsfleet provides alternative episcopal oversight are a minority among those opposed to the bishops’ plans. CEEC represents a much broader group and is majority egalitarian. There are plenty who are comfortable with women bishops but not same sex marriage, and they won’t be willing or able (in law) to come under the Bishop of Ebbsfleet. The issues are different and I think people may not appreciate the sheer size of the numbers here – it’s far more than a tiny but vocal minority as it was with women bishops. Referring to them as conservative… Read more »
If they’re egalitarian they wouldn’t have an issue with equal marriage. Do you perhaps mean they’re gender essentialists?
*the sheer size if the numbers here”. it is as yet unclear what the size of the numbers are. Or rather it is not yet possible to see how far those who are dismayed will take it.It would be difficult not to be unhappy about aspects of the C if E but how will that unhappiness translate in practical terms over this issue? I doubt that there will be a uniform response from unhappy evangelicals, cons,open it charismatic, not least because congregations will be divided in views and strategy and frankly resources to do anything major also. Evangelical clergy may… Read more »
Let’s turn this around. What do progressive believers want? Who is the pro-equality Director of Strategy and Operations? Where are the slick videos and position statements clearly setting out what supporters of LGBT+ inclusion will do next? How many clicks on the CEEC’s content are from pro-equality Anglicans who have been sharing it on their social media to generate a reaction? It’s easy to express bemusement or dismay at the CEEC’s latest pronouncements, or try to pick holes in their methods. Less easy to reflect on how progressive Christians will move on from the Church of England’s latest fudge, learn… Read more »
I suppose the problem is that the progressive side is united only in opposition to the status quo. There is a single thing they all want, namely the redefinition of marriage, but little unanimity beyond that. The hard work of constructing a settlement that can reasonably be expected to command majority acceptance, or indeed of deciding such major issues as whether they wish to retain the conservative wing within the Church, and if so, on what terms, has been postponed until after their victory on that one issue.
“celebrate relationships outside marriage between one man and one woman, which will often be sexually active”
Right. Same-sex couples, I suppose, are to lie down next to each other — in separate beds, wearing pajamas — and think of England.
But, upon further reading this clause, I thought “You mean heterosexual religiously-married couples aren’t sexually active? That might explain the declining birthrate.”
And,
” Every Voice Matters”, but not if they are GLBT, eh, CEEC?
Well. The encouragement to explore joining the Global South people is yet more evidence, if evidence were needed, that GSFA is nothing to do with geography. And, as I’ve asked for a while now, in all these vague plans: in what would ‘unity’ consist in the CEEC future? Electing deanery synod reps and doing diocesan safeguarding courses?
Helen, I am not clear what you think should or will happen next ? The small scale “differentiation” that gets mentioned by progressives is not going to be acceptable. Synod is gridlocked for at least the next three years. Is that just it ? I appreciate progressives hope that CEEC is a paper tiger and that the majority of conservatives will in the end just have to cope with what little they might get offered. However, is this really a credible strategy. The Anglican Communion is dividing now over the issue.The notion it will all calm down after a while… Read more »
Conservatives will have to cope with what little they may be offered?? Sorry, Peter, I’m no longer able to keep calm with the way they/you present themselves as the persecuted ones here. Conservatives have managed to stay in the C of E through the ordination of women, the consecration of women as bishops, the marriage of those who’ve been divorced… yet optional prayers to be used with someone in a legal marriage or CP somehow contaminate the church and somehow do irreparable damage to the salvation of the conservatives? I’m continuing to work for those whose faithful relationships still go… Read more »
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said anybody is contaminating anything.
I don’t understand what you think happens next.
With respect, you are a key decision maker with a vote at GS. Surely I am entitled to ask you the question.
In which case it would be helpful for the presentation of the progressive case for its proponents to make it clear that they are not calling for those of conservative views to be excluded or sanctioned — or rather, for the moderate majority on the progressive side to make it clear that they repudiate such calls, including those made in these columns. If those calls were in fact to form an integral part of the progressive position, then they would constitute a clear call for the conservative side to be persecuted, as claimed.
I don’t know anyone on the progressive side who wants those with different views to be “excluded or sanctioned”. In this tiny little adjustment currently supported by Synod, nobody would ever have to use the prayers asking for God’s blessing on a couple who’ve already committed to each other in a civil ceremony. Like nobody ever has to preside at the marriage of two people of opposite sex where one has previously been divorced.
I know of such a person, but was unable to post the details.
I you visit the website of the Campaign for Equal Marriage you will see its three clear aims: For same-sex couples to be able to be married in Church of England parishes.For people in such marriages to have the same opportunities for lay and ordained ministry in the Church of England as anyone else.That the consciences of everyone should be protected – no member of the clergy should be forced to conduct a marriage they disagree with. No member of the clergy should be prevented from celebrating a marriage of a same-sex couple. Those aims have been there since the… Read more »
I don’t know anyone on the progressive side who wants those with different views to be “excluded or sanctioned”There is absolutely no intention from the progressive side to exclude or sanction those of conservative views. Unfortunately those statements are not correct, as can be seen from comments made on this very blog. There is a subgroup within the progressive camp who identify the expression of traditional views on sexuality with a most serious form of abuse, and regard it as a safeguarding issue. Jayne Ozanne, for example, has written “Current church teaching has already cost far too many LGBT+ lives.”… Read more »
If John Dunnett is not actively and publicly promoting schism he is certainly tiptoeing a very fine line just short of it. I hope his bishop, whoever that is, will be inviting him to come and have a chat about that. It’s ‘conduct unbecoming’ and there’s a real risk of unwary others being influenced by it, to their harm. To be clear, his offence is not that he is opposed to same sex relationships. That view is conscientiously held by a majority of Anglicans and I for one respect it. But trying to persuade people that they should go apart… Read more »
It is wholly wrong of you to personalise it to the extent of calling for John Dunnett to be spoken to by his bishop.
He is the spokesperson for CEEC.
When you occupy public office as a priest you cease to be a private person. You have to think carefully about what you say and how you say it.
Please don’t patronise me.
The public claim that John Dunnett should be questioned by his bishop in relation to conduct unbecoming is an indefensible mis use of clergy disciplinary arrangements to advance a political aim.
But the claim that he is actively promoting schism stands with this what reads like a directive from the moral high ground. If he was really committed to unity, then the whole tone and strategy would be different.
Many in the debate at Synod were recognising that a settlement was needed in this intractable impasse – so why not work creatively and graciously for something? This very quickly cobbled together “strategy” is no way forward.
The claim that CEEC (please stop personalising it on their spokesperson) is promoting schism is just propaganda unless there is a fair and accurate analysis.
What is it that they are saying that you are asserting is schismatic ?
Generalities are not a sufficient basis for such a serious allegation.
“Schism – a split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.” Where the CEEC calls for visible differentiation, including separating into different provinces, the CEEC is promoting a split between those with differences of opinion. That, by definition, is schism. If they are calling for a strong code of conduct to protect clerical conscience within the existing structures of the C of E, that would not be schism. Note that the vast majority responding to the LLF consultation (Listening with Love and Faith, published September 2022) and from across the theological spectrum… Read more »
A negotiated settlement is obviously distinct from schism.
Even if the result is essentially the same?
I am not patronising you –
I am taking you seriously by engaging with you. ‘Being questioned by his bishop’ may well be over the top but bishops do take this sort of thing seriously and do talk to clergy about it. You cannot go around urging a split and not expect the bishop to have something to say. .
I apologise for my turn of phrase which was somewhat abrasive.
I would say CDM is a sledgehammer that should be left in a locked cupboard unless its use is the only option.
I beg to differ. Marriage is not a second order issue. It is a first order issue, and the house of bishops’ proposals are a clear step on the road to changing the doctrine of marriage.
Please can you explain why marriage is s first order issue but marriage after divorce isn’t? And why marriage is a first order issue but the ordination of women isn’t?
Bob, marriage may be very important but that doesn’t make it a first order issue. The doctrine of the trinity and the essential truths of the incarnation such as the full deity and humanity of Christ and his bodily death and resurrection are examples of first order issues. The Church has consistently taught that those who deny these things are by definition not Christians. That’s what’s meant by a first order issue. By the same token those who affirm them are by definition fellow Christians and we ought to relate to them as such. Marriage has never been a touchstone… Read more »
Marriage has never before been the subject of such confusion would be a more accurate historic comment than your claim that marriage has never been a touchstone of orthodoxy.
The notion that this is all a storm in a tea cup and everybody needs to calm down cannot bear serious scrutiny.
Very large numbers of people from across the world think this is a first order issue. You obviously disagree but please don’t gaslight people by suggesting nothing is really wrong.
I have to respond to this ! As a C.of E. priest for over 60 years, still active, I have also been for more than 40 years a member of the historic congregation of King’s Chapel, Boston, founded in 1686 as Episcopalian but since the Revolution unitarian Christian. Check it out ! There is a significant number of people who are certainly Christians who would not subscribe in any literal sense to the doctrines Jane Charman refers to (even if they could make sense of them) including, to take one example, those of the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland and… Read more »
There is no doctrine of marriage in the sense I think you mean. It is not like christology or atonement.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/llf-a-paper-on-the-doctrine-of-marriage/
Exactly . We need to think more clearly about the nature of doctrine itself. We are handicapped in the C of E ( and Anglicanism generally) by a lack of Systematic theologians.
Well, if marriage is a first order issue, the Antique Church completly missed it. There is no trace of marriage (or, more generally, sexuality) in the Creeds. Perhaps for ConEvan (TradCath) “first order issue” means “something I’m obsessed with” (“something the RCC is obsessed with”).
NB: In Catholic parliance, “first order issue” becomes “in-negotiable”.
The creeds address the heresies of their day which were christological.
It is a false inference to claim the creeds are evidence in support of SSM.
Are you then saying that belief in the sanctity of same-sex marriage is a heresy?
It is an historical fact that accompanying the creeds were clear statements on the Christian conduct that would follow. Canons.
To ask a Creed to do service for sorting out what the canons themselves did, is to confuse their genre and place in history.
My reply was not to Peter, but to Mr ONeill.
Creeds and Canons (concerning conduct) go hand in hand, and they each play their role.
To isolate a Creed and ask it to deal both with challenges to the Faith Catholic, and to areas covered by Canons, is to confound their purposes. A ‘Creed’ does not float in isolation. It exists within an organic ecclesial context.
Nobody is claiming the Creeds support SSM – or condemn it. They say nothing about it. They address issues of the nature of God etc – which are first order issues. This is not to say that marriage is not important but it is not on a par with who Jesus is.
I can assure you I have heard the silence of the Creeds on the issue of marriage offered as evidence that it is not a first order issue.
Leaving aside the language of ‘first’ and ‘second’ order, I dispute your priority. Mark 10 says that two people who have sex become one flesh. It’s reinforced in Corinthians. Allowing remarriage after divorce throws that teaching away. It removes the one ‘religious’ aspect of marriage, relegating the concept to q social construct. As marriage has been rendered only a social construct by the acceptance of remarriage after divorce, what’s the problem with recognising any and all legal marriages?
You raise an interesting question. Do same sex couples engaging in sex ‘become one flesh’?
Do those who marry become one flesh then divorce and remarry become one flesh a second time? No was the answer of the Anglican moral theologians of my childhood. They were banned from receiving communion. At least in the C of E it might have been different in TEC. Even my moral theology tutor EW Trueman Dicken was arguing this in the late 1970’s
Thank you.
Can I ask you to answer the question posed?
Maybe first define “become one flesh”? Does it simply mean ‘physically joined together in a sexual act? Then gay and lesbian couples can become one flesh. Does it mean when sperm and egg join? Then I suppose that’s exclusive to straight couples, and can happen even with artifical insemination and no physical sex. Does it mean some emotional and spiritual union? In which case, why shouldn’t gay and lesbian union not likewise be capable of that. Does it mean the child that is born? In which case, does that mean childless couples do not become one flesh. … … …… Read more »
Dear Professor, you ask a very interesting question, I note you did not get a reply, however I think it is worth considering in greater depth. At what level is gay intimacy “becoming one flesh” I would appreciate some feedback from both a conservative and liberal prospective.
Every good wish for a holy Lent
Thank you Fr. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” One flesh” echoes the language of the preceding verse when Adam first meets Eve and exclaims, “This one is bone of my bone, and flesh from my flesh!” At the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ Corporality is integral to the language. “Flesh.”Man.” “Woman.” “Cleave/unite.” A metaphor is something… Read more »
Dear Fr.
I ‘note I am not getting a reply’ to the comments I have made in response to your note.
Every good wish for a Holy Lent.
I don’t see any mention of sex in Mark 10.
One flesh surely isn’t a literal thing is it?
Exactly. It’s literalising a metaphor again. Clearly, in physical terms, the two people do not literally become one flesh. They don’t merge into a single gooey entity (albeit that sounds quite fun). They simply become emotionally close in the giving of themselves to each other. Which I assure you a lesbian or gay couple can achieve as well.
It’s love, innit?
Incidentally, I suspect the early Christians and bible authors probably did think sex between men was dodgy. But Jesus himself didn’t even think the ‘problem’ merited a single comment (or at least one that was reported). What worried him most was religious hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and failure to love. When it comes to sex, what Jesus seems to care about is fidelity and commitment, and the givenness of love to protect the partner emotionally as opposed to the promiscuous sleep-with-anyone mindset. About men sleeping with men, or women sleeping with women, he says absolutely nothing at all. Again and again, Jesus… Read more »
CEEC (The Church of England Evangelical Council) is a legally constituted charity. It has Church of England Bishops on its Council. John Dunnett works for the Council and is its spokesperson. He is also ordained within the church of England. There is a call made in the comments below for John Dunnett to be called in to speak to his Bishop on the basis of “conduct unbecoming”. This is an egregious mis-treatment of John Dunnett. It also much worse. So this is how progressives are going to treat conservatives. Due process is going to be suborned to allow the personal… Read more »
Indeed, five active bishops, including Ebbsfleet, are listed as Council members, of whom two are diocesans. Some other retired bishops are also listed. This leads me to ask why more bishops are now being requested.
Caveat: the website says
(list to be updated following CEEC’s annual residential meeting in January 2023)
Fair point, Simon.
The five you mention are locked into the house/college of bishops collective responsibility framework. If they were a separate episcopate that would be fine.
I don’t think anybody imagines a crowd of brand new bishops appearing out of nowhere.
The CEEC Council (per website as now) has the usual suspects in terms of bishops, but there have been some recent changes. For a while +Guildford was the sole remaining diocesan, following +Blackburn’s retirement. +Hereford, I think, quietly withdrew after the Beautiful Story video, as did Emma Ineson, on her then move to Lambeth. Pete Broadbent was a member for many years. +Southwell and Nottingham is I think new to the Council, but not to the cause! +Lancaster would be a member, I surmise, on grounds of her views on sexuality, but is a priest! However that has not put… Read more »
Part of the issue is that the Church of England cannot be neatly carved up into worlds of “evangelicals” and “progressives” – there are people who would like significant change on same sex marriage and others for whom that is a step too far. There are also those who would tolerate change if they weren’t required to implement it, and people who would change more slowly. Many people change their views and practices over a lifetime. The “numbers game” is discredited – the fact is that the tendency is to imagine that one’s own view is more widely held than… Read more »
I agree with much of your analysis. However, we have a real situation to face.
I think CEEC and GSFA matter.
As congregations are mixed every congregation will need the opportunity of the prayers.
I haven’t heard anyone say they don’t matter. What they have said, which I don’t think you have really reckoned with, is the CEEC do not actually speak for all of the evangelical constituency within the CofE. And that the GSFA don’t actually speak for the entire Global south and shoot themselves in the foot when their letter from 12 Primates includes 2 who are not part of the Anglican Communion and at least one who didn’t actually sign the thing and doesn’t even agree with it.
Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, South America are all members of Gafcon, and they are members of the GSFA. Their names are missing, but no one doubts Gafcon’s stance vis-a-vis the CofE and Canterbury. Other provinces are in a waiting mode, as ++Welby has requested a Primates Meeting to discuss the leadership of the AC.
‘Shoot themselves in the foot’ is wishful thinking, I fear.
Lenten Blessings.
For clarity, “South America” includes: Argentina (2 dioceses), Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay.
Thank you for this helpful clarification. “South America” is the nomenclature used at the Gafcon site and I was merely reproducing it.
Further clarity: the diocese of Uruguay consists of a bishop and two priests.
“There is much irenic talk on these threads to the effect that fact conservatives should neither expect or want anything more than a “conscience clause” because that is all they will need.” Peter it doesn’t really matter what conservatives or progressives expect or want or need. The only thing that matters is what General Synod decide. CEEC – and you in comments here and elsewhere – keep asking for ‘settlement’. The only way that a church within a Church – which is what they and you mean by ‘settlement’ – is going to happen is if some very detailed and… Read more »
I agree with your analysis.
A settlement is a very very long way off. I’m not suggesting or even expecting it to be the most likely outcome.
I have yet to hear anything clear or well presented from a progressive perspective as to what they think will or should happen.
IF (and it’s an enormous, galaxy-sized “if”) the bishops were so inclined, they could consecrate (or invite bishops from overseas to consecrate) bishops for a new conservative sect. There might be ways found to lease otherwise redundant church buildings to the sect. What I can’t see if how this would be noticeably different from those clergy and lay people who wish to joining (say) the Free Church of England. It seems to me that evangelicals imagine something akin to the 1843 Disruption of the Church of Scotland, where the Frees left what they considered to be a corrupted established church,… Read more »
You have missed the final step: aproval by Parliament. In this case, it wouldn’t be a formality.
Speaking very generally, the law requires that officers of an entity be loyal to that entity.
Bishops and priests who are in the Church of England should not encourage departure from the Church of England. That would be a violation of the duty of loyalty.
John Dunnett and CEEC are loyal to the Church of England.
You presume to claim the Church of England belongs to progressives. It does not.
No they are not! They are loyal to their projected image of how the Church of England should be. The Church of England belongs to God – some people would seek to claim it as their own based on varying degrees of supremacy, authenticity, sociology and various other self-legitimating benchmarks.
If only!!
No-one is saying John Dunnett should be faced with ‘conduct unbecoming’ due to his views on sexuality – the issue is his call for schism.
Most evangelical bishops are not involved with CEEC. Time was when they would be. CEEC is out of touch and does not any longer represent all evangelicals. This is very sad as we need an evangelical voice. Maybe evangelicals are too disparate now for there to be one.
Charles,
I have no idea what will now happen. I am certain casting “conduct unbecoming” charges around is a very bad idea for all of us.
Marriage is essentially a contract between two people. The Law of the Land says that those people don’t need to be of the opposite sex. By a historical accident the State has given the right to draw up marriage contracts to various religious organisations. If these organisations don’t want to draw up contracts in accordance with the Law they should not be permitted to do so. We should petition our MPs to take away those rights, and many of these unseemly arguments would disappear. If a group of friends want to discriminate against certain types of people or behaviour then… Read more »
“The Law of the Land says that those people don’t need to be of the opposite sex.” That has only been the position since the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, very recent legislation in the scale of things. I’m afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant law in saying “By a historical accident the State has given the right to draw up marriage contracts to various religious organisations.” It is precisely this Act and the Equality Act 2010 (freedom from discrimination on grounds of religion is one of the protected characteristics, conveniently overlooked in much of these… Read more »
Indeed. ‘Historical accident’ in the sense that if we were starting from where we are now (with a less than 10% Christian population) we would not have the 1949 Act. Is there not a principle that newer legislation tends to trump older? Either way we have mutually contradictory laws, and if this could be disentangled it would benefit us all.
Well, actually there is no conflict. The quadruple lock in the 2013 Act had to be inserted to ensure this was the case, namely that there was no conflict between the Act and the marriage canon. My sense is that Parliament is now looking at this. There may be more ‘summons’ to the Palace of Westminster!
As suggested below, better to wait and see. Cantuar could/ should remind MPs that doctrine is a matter wholly for the church and for its members to decide on any changes. There is already legal machinery for effecting change, i.e., General Synod. Parliamentary intervention might be unlawful!
I’m not sure that I can take this much further. Any change to the Canons or doctrine of the Church of England requires a majority vote of not less than two-thirds of those present and voting in all three Houses of General Synod: Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974 (No. 3), so, with customary caution, I suggest we can only wait and see what happens. As Peter (I think rightly) surmises, any intervention by legislation by HM Government might well be challenged by judicial review. Also, as already indicated, human rights issues and legislation potentially come into play.… Read more »
Well we are all wandering around speculating on TA, but not of course without interest. It is some years since I graduated in law, and I have never studied judicial review, but it seems clear to me that the courts can’t interfere with primary legislation. I’m on record as saying that I don’t think Parliament will intervene (certainly as regards the marriage canon) but I wouldn’t be surprised if an attempt was made to, in the words of Sir Peter Bottomley MP, wake the Church of England up. It is abusing its privileged position and should get back to mission… Read more »
Hear Hear!
Sir Peter Bottomley, unsurprisingly, voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill on the Third Reading. I’m not sure that rhetoric about abuse of privileged position is either accurate or helpful. Actually, the opposite is arguable: the C of E has widely become treated as a kind of ecclesiastical Marks & Spencer’s where the customer is always right.
Peter said: – “The Church of England in its historic doctrine does not claim that anybody should refrain from sex because they are gay. That is an entirely fictional doctrine. Everybody should refrain from sex if they are not married. It’s a different doctrine” Too right. Peter! although very few people in society would nowadays agree with that understanding – especially in the light of the reality of ‘nocturnal emissions’, which occur naturally in the lives of most normal young people. (REALITY) – Is that still a basis for private confession in boys boarding schools, one wonders? Your noting that… Read more »
I noted the historic doctrine that everybody who is not married should abstain from sex by which I meant (and I think it was obvious) sexual intimacy.
I said nothing at all about a general obligation on everybody to seek celibacy because there is no such obligation.
We are all free to marry, subject only to the historic restrictions on marriage.
Is it possible for you to explain how the marriage of a same-sex couple affects you personally? How do the sexual or marital preferences of your Christian neighbours impinge upon your own private life? You seem very upset (and judgemental) about how others conduct themselves.
I have simply stated the historic understanding of marriage. I am neither upset or judgemental. Every one of us has a stake in marriage. It is the foundation of human society.
If every one of us has a stake in marriage, why deny same-sex couples the legal right? You are obviously very fearful.
I think our society is in great need of more stable relationships, contributing to our communities, and not fewer. Since marriage helps support long-term committed relationships, brings blessings, contributes stability… and since the Church prefers to see sexuality operating in that committed framework… why would we want to deny that stability and support and blessing to gay people? And since gay and lesbian people can now bring up children, why would we want to deny that security to them?
Not taking a wider view on the matter, but surely the recent developments give credence to civil marriage as a good. Since your argument is that ‘society needs stable relationships,’ they are presently available. Of course, arguments like yours just go around in circles and so I tend to agree with Peter that it is better to admit to irreconcilable differences and to seek a solution acceptable to both parties. We are talking about distinctive worldviews and ways of approaching the character and nature of truth. Incommensurables. Surely that much has been established already. No more talking and blogging is… Read more »
Do *you* regard “civil marriage as a good” if it is between two gay men or two lesbian women?
And if so, what is the problem with them marrying in the Church?
I agree that behind all the talk about sexuality, there is a wider clash of paradigms over the nature of scriptural authority.
Thankfully, whichever approach one believes in, there is still access to grace, and the capacity to open to the Love of God.
“And if so, what is the problem with them marrying in the Church?”
Because the Church has not agreed. Presumably that is why you have absented yourself from the CofE.
Of course all are present before the Divine Majesty of Love, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To Him be the glory.
His access is always available.
to be clear, I mean, the arguments on both sides go around in circles and only touch at points of abrasion and (hopefully courteous) disjuncture.
Then perhaps more attention should be given to cohabitation, abortion, the fact fewer and fewer are bothering to marry and those that do often divorce. This is 96%of the population. Rather more of an issue I would have thought than getting steamed up about homosexuals.
Peter, I would argue that you are prone to making confident and bold statements about the “doctrine of marriage”, or the history of church teaching on a subject, when in fact there is no such single doctrine or teaching. The doctrine or teaching has varied over time, and has often been contested, with different parts of the church having different views at different times. And that has always been the case. We could have a more productive debate if we could agree on this. This blog by Prof Diarmaid MacCulloch is from a few years ago now, at the start… Read more »
I’m not making confident or bold statements.
One generation ago my statements would have been seen as nothing more than a statement of the blindingly obvious.
Also, one generation ago many issues of morality and its probity tendency towards the exercise of injustice would have been seen in a different light from that of today’s scientific and theological enlightenment – not least on issues such as the naturally variable occurrence of sexual identity as more than just the ‘binary.’ The Church has had a lot of growing up to do in the interim. The mills of God grind slowly – especially on matters of human relationships and their moral probity. The C. of E. is beginning to look beyond its ancient texts towards a more scientific… Read more »
There’s that word again. ‘Historic’. CEEC have ‘as it has been received’. All ways to deflect from reliance on the Bible, not tradition and a fundamental feature of Anglicanism is that one generation may come to understand the Bible better than preceding generations. St Paul gives the fullest teaching about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. He stresses that we should accept the path to which the Lord calls us – single and celibate or married. But a modern understanding of his teaching of accepting how we have been made by the Lord in terms of our appetite for sex and… Read more »
“Understand the bible better than preceding generations” sounds like progressive ideology rather than Anglicanism to me.
Are your denying that reason–one of the three legs of Anglicanism as I learned it–is incapable of improving our understanding of Scripture? Are you arguing that our “new” understanding of biology, or even of ancient languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic, is not a gift of wisdom from the Holy Spirit?
When did the Spirit stop speaking to us? With Cranmer? With Augustine? With the four Evangelists?
I’ve never understood why the Holy Spirit reveals the gifts of wisdom so slowly. Why doesn’t He get on with it and tell us everything? I suspect you are simply describing human ingenuity.
I have always taken the stance that the Spirit reveals things to us when he decides we are ready to accept and understand them…and yes, part of that is human ingenuity, one of the great gifts of the Spirit, IMO.
For instance, revealing to us the true nature of the cosmos before we could even see clearly the surface of our own moon would have been useless. Part of the Spirit’s revelation is allowing us to find out for ourselves.
I’m not sure if saying the Holy Spirit’s decision to advance our understanding adds anything to human discovery and curiosity. Many clinicians would love to know more about incurable diseases. Thankfully, the COVID vaccine saved millions of lives through clever, secular epidemiologists, rather than divine revelation. In fact, “revelation” seems a somewhat redundant concept. It seems strange “part of the Spirit’s revelation is allowing us to find out” a cure for terminal cancers for ourselves. You’d think He’d do it now.
The spirit moves in mysterious ways. Perhaps there are consequences to such cures that the Spirit knows we are not ready to deal with. Perhaps such cures are not possible without violating the laws of chemistry and physics (in which case they would not be human-discovered cures, but miracles, right?).
That all sounds very cruel to me.
Sounds very natural to me. The Spirit reveals the world to us as it is, not as we would like it to be.
The Spirit does not reveal the world to us. We do.
I seem to recall it’s something to do with free will.
Ah yes. Human ingenuity. What has “divine revelation” got to do with it?
I’m not sure there is such a thing as free will. Since we are but gonads on a support system, we are at the mercy of circulating chemicals produced by our organs and by the billions of creatures that live in and on us. This is good fun.
I bow to your superior medical knowledge, Professor Monkhouse. Lack of free-will exposes much of the hot air surrounding discussions about human sexuality. It’s no use Conservative Evangelicals pontificating on the behaviour of others, when they have a very limited free choice themselves.
Chemistry and physics are human constructs based on our experience. Only mathematics is pure.
“… the historic doctrine that everybody who is not married should abstain from sex …”
The truth is that for more than a millenium the Church paid no attention to marriage. Excepto for the upper social layers of society, marriage was a pure civil subject. Indeed, it was something more like “de facto union”.
Bernos – Lécrivain – Roncière – Guinon. ” Le fruit defendu”. Centurion, Paris, 1985.
St Paul did encourage all believers to practice celibacy, unless they couldn’t contain their sexual urges (1 Cor 7:25-39). I don’t know many evangelicals – or, for that matter, Anglo-Catholics or progressives – preaching and tweeting about that teaching. It might be helpful to single people and young people if they did.
And what are LGB people to do if their ‘passions are strong’ (NRSV: NIV and GNB have ‘burn with passion’)?
Hi Ron, I am not sure why you think that can’t be denied. I can think of plenty of conservative evangelical people – both personal friends and those who speak publicly on these topics – who are setting what you describe as a ‘good example of celibacy’ regardless of their sexuality. I think I hear you saying that you think there should be more such good examples from heterosexual people abstaining from marriage, which is a reasonable thing to suggest. Perhaps if there were more people living celibately it would be more plausible seeming way of life. But it does… Read more »
The ‘Keeping Faith’ document proposes that churches ‘Set up [their] own parochial trust into which any assets can be put that are not property of the DBF (inc equipment like PA gear, instruments (not the organ), office equipment etc).’ Movable church furnishings like PA gear and instruments are vested in the churchwardens for the use and benefit of the parishioners and cannot be alienated without faculty. That ownership and restriction may not apply to office equipment not sited within the church, but even then the PCC members have to act in the best interests of the PCC, and would have… Read more »
Please can we have a proper explanation of what progressives want and expect next.
Is the motion passed by General Synod not a first approximation to the answer?
If ever there was an orphan motion destined to be abandoned by its authors it is surely the one passed by the recent Synod.
Categorically not. The February motion sets the direction of travel. The House of Bishops will listen to Synod in July but can move forward regardless. The Church of England is episcopally led and synodically governed.
Anthony,
Surely it claimed to set two contradictory directions of travel. I was making a narrow procedural point about the motion wording.
Your are obviously correct in relation to the wider strategic realities.
Well the House of Bishops were able to ‘get away with it’ in a sense because of the 2013 Act. I think the distinction between Holy Matrimony and civil marriage is disingenuous. It certainly creates a huge cadre of second class citizens. Marriage is marriage, but they continue to hide behind their view of the distinction, and of course enough voted for the Cornes amendment to ‘ink it in.’ They are dead scared of the dam bursting. But as I have noted elsewhere, the bishops I have spoken to think the package doesn’t advance the matter sufficiently. We are where… Read more »
1) The implementation of the Bishop’s proposals, which were welcomed by a majority vote in all three Houses of the General Synod. That means Prayers of Love and Faith to be available as commended liturgy usable by those ministers who wish to use it and new pastoral guidance to replace Issues in Human Sexuality. 2) In accordance with that vote, a five year period of reception of those changes with an evaluation at the end. 3) The new pastoral guidance to include a conscience clause for clergy to enter same sex civil marriages should they wish, and still be issued… Read more »
I think your explanation is clear and precise and welcome.
The reality is that your point six is incompatible with the previous five points.
There is no possibility that the Church of England will survive in its current form if your points one to five are pursued.
Point 6) is unrealistic because it overlooks that some of us see this as a critical safeguarding issue which needs to be addressed urgently.
Kate, I suspect you may speak for many progressives, even the mainstream Is the logic of your position to have no conservative teaching of young people that gay sex is wrong? In effect does this mean that the conservative evangelicals have no room to thrive in the church? Or am I mis-reading your argument?
Is the thriving of conservative evangelicals dependent on being able to bully young gay people into lifelong celibacy?
Let’s assume in this discussion, that advocating celibacy for gay young people is part of what conservative evangelicals want to teach. Is your view that they should be able to teach that in the Church of England? if not is there room for the conservative evangelicals in that church?
If conservative evangelicals can confine giving their opinion on same sex activity to adult individuals specifically seeking personal counsel from them that would suffice to protect the most vulnerable.
what about sermons? that would seem to be the sticking point.
Well quite. If we turn this on its head, as things stand at present, and probably for 10 years to come, there is a ban on Holy Matrimony in church. There (at present) remains an insinuation that gay sex is not God’s best plan. Even when the Pastoral Guidelines are written – given the Cornes amendment – there is low probability that gay sex will be publicly mandated for priests in civil marriages. Since this is the status quo, should priests be banned from preaching in sermons that gay sex is good? Now I think gay sex and lesbian sexuality… Read more »
I very much doubt that any form of sexual activity will be “mandated”.
It’s not just conservative evangelicals that hold to orthodox teaching on marriage and human sexuality. Just look at the breadth of evangelical membership of CEEC.
It is not at all clear what proportion even of evangelicals the CEEC represents. I suspect a fair number of evangelicals and people attending evangelical CofE churches would be appalled by what is being put out in their name.
In the Church of England do we have “Evangelical churches”? Or do we,I hope, have parish churches (ideally operating as such) which express an evangelical churchmanship as well as others (e.g. with an anglo-catholic tradition.) Or just middle of the road where I suspect most churches and certainly most Laity are.
De facto? Of course the CofE has evangelical churches, particularly in cities, and of course most extra-parochial church plants are evangelical.
The reason the unstable amalgam which is the present C of E is becoming even more unstable perhaps?
Different progressives want different things. Some want to play the long game, and endure a ban on gay marriage for a further 5 years (which will minimally and practically probably extend towards 10), because in ‘long-game’ terms they hope the proposed (very limited) blessings may change enough people’s minds through familiarity and normalisation to lead to sufficient support for a 67% support for a full change of doctrine on the progressives’ terms. Given conservatism among bishops, and given the deeply-held convictions of the more conservative members in the Church, I have less confidence in that optimism. And also, the last… Read more »
‘The C of E is the Church for *all* people in the nation (of England) and not just for its regular members’.
Don’t most Christians believe that they are there for everybody? I’ve never understood how this is something unique to the Church of England.
Anglican clergy and parish churches are expected to serve everyone living within their strictly defined geographical boundaries in a way that non-Anglicans are not. For instance we are required to baptise, marry, and conduct the funerals/bury of pretty much everyone who applies. Many non-Anglicans, of course, run food banks, social clubs, mums and tots groups etc for all comers, and in that way we are alike.
There are at least 3 positions:
1 Want a way for gay and lesbian Christians, including those who are ordained, to be sexually active in a lifelong same sex relationship.
2. Others want those relationships to be blessed and to move towards celebrating them in church as marriages.
3. And a third group want to protect gay and lesbian youth and vulnerable adults from undue pressure to suppress their sexual orientation as a safeguarding priority.
I think it is helpful to hear progressive aims and you are clear and straightforward in your explanation.
Neither of your first two aims are compatible with the Church of England as it is currently constituted.
Nobody is seeking to suppress anybody’s sexual orientation, therefore your third aim is easily satisfied.
This very question exposes some serious theological and ecclesial myopia. if I could respond as a Christian who loves God and loves the home I call the church, but with whom I am struggling……. I want a church where everyone finds an unconditional home I want a church which is bold in sharing and living the unconditional love of acceptance and of home – that is truly evangelical I want a church which stops talking on this websites (me included!) and visits people who need us I want a church which is standing alongside migrant people, gay people, straight white… Read more »
What evangelical clergy (like all local church leaders actually) need more than anything else right now, are supportive pastoral guidelines for helping them lead their church congregations, who all contain a variety of views on same-sex relationships, through the conversations they need to respond with love and faith to what Synod has voted to support. In simply talking as if churches are on one side or the other CEEC are not even acknowledging the reality of this need.
Totally agree. Apparently the house of bishops hadn’t even started to write the pastoral guidelines when synod was asked to vote. It is more than likely that the pastoral guidelines will not be ready by July. CEEC is fully aware of the fact this issue divides congregations, divides PCCs, etc. Yet the house of bishops have provided no support or guidance.
Bob. The bishops have not been tardy on this. The pastoral guidelines were always intended to be written in response to the proposals passed by synod. They will be discussed in July. I do not know why you think they won’t. There is also a great deal of pastoral content and intent in the material they brought to synod – including the prayers. So I don’t agree they have offered no guidance. But this is still work in progress. My own comments were solely aimed at CEEC’s responses.
Having had conversations with some of those involved in the process I think it is unlikely that the pastoral guidelines will be ready in July. There are a number of reasons why. Nothing had been written by February. Writing such guidelines must not, cannot be rushed. The house of bishops is divided on the matter.
Also, any pastoral guidance is purely for the Bishops to give and does not require Synodical approval. That was the case with the predecessor document, Issues in Human Sexuality, which the Bishops issued and was never discussed in Synod. The role of Synod is to legislate or to advise. The Synod vote on LLF in February was not passing legislation but advising the Bishops that Synod welcomed new pastoral guidance being written. It is not Synod’s job to pass or veto the guidance, it can only offer an opinion on what the bishops produce, and the bishops are free to… Read more »
Well the intended timing is clearly stated. Answer to q161 Feb Synod by Bishop of London (and repeated elsewhere) – ‘The Prayers of Love and Faith and the Pastoral Guidance will be developed in tandem, and it is hoped that they will be ready in time for the meeting of the General Synod in July 2023.’ So it is also the intention to involve Synod – which is surely wise. And if nothing else we have surely learned that ‘Issues’ is not a model for the process we need.
IIHS was ultimately discussed in General Synod in about 1997, five years after it was published, in a wider debate. George Carey noted that: ‘we are dealing with irreconcilable opinions.’ We haven’t come very far in 25 years, and I don’t think LLF has helped one jot.
We asked people to share their experiences for LLF. They shared a lot of pain but the response is underwhelming. Rather than saying LLF hasn’t helped a jot I would suggest that the bigger problem is bishops’failure now to address properly the pain revealed. An apology and prayers which fail to even offer blessings are inadequate.
‘I don’t think LLF has helped one jot’. Anthony, I simply do not understand this statement. In every decade from the 1960’s there have been major reports and debates about sexuality in the CofE without leading to any decision or agreement. Now, through this unique labour of love called LLF, the Church of England has, for the first time, publicly affirmed same-sex relationships marriages and the first time it has made any liturgical provision for same-sex couples. I know the process has been flawed. It is too little for some and far too much for others. But I for one am very… Read more »
Well I’m afraid I’m a cynic. LLF has its origins in Pilling, and later the Shared Conversations. There was little progress. When I suggested obliquely that LLF was designed to kick the can down the road post Lambeth 2020 (as it then was) I got significant personal pushback from ++Cantuar. Actually I regarded the establishment of LLF as a matter for the House of Bishops. If it was an exercise to build a culture of ‘disagreeing well’, a laudable aim, it has failed lamentably given the post February Synod comments and actions. Hence my shorthand post that LLF had not… Read more »
The reality is that the Church of England is divided down the middle on whether it should accept gay sex and marriage or not. We all know that. As you rightly say, the bishops came to Synod in February, putting huge weight on Pastoral Guidelines that didn’t even exist. So people voted to welcome them without knowing what they would eventually say. One issue that may have to be faced in July is that exactly the same divide in the Church will see different groups wanting the Pastoral Guidelines to be written in accordance with their own beliefs. Are priests… Read more »
I thought I would post one comment rather than thank and respond to each person separately, I hope you don’t mind. Thanks everyone for helping me understand your view about the traditional teaching being a safeguarding risk. I still think the rhetoric is deeply unhelpful, but I have a better understanding of why you think it is harmful, thank you for engaging with me. I think I have understood you to be saying that teaching that someone can never have sex is psychologically harmful. This is because it makes them see something that they believe to be intrinsic to who… Read more »
I have posted comments from a conservative evangelical perspective at some length on Thinking Anglicans with the intention of seeking to encourage a settlement between conservatives and progressives. I hold no office and speak on behalf of nobody apart from myself. I think the Church of England is an enormously important denomination and have wanted to do something – anything – to help deliver it from the chaos that is about to engulf it. My settled observation is that there is no evidence that progressives see either the need or the value of a mediated settlement. I say that as… Read more »
Be encouraged Peter that informal discussions between conservatives and progressives have been going on for some time, chaired by Stephen Croft, and involving Vaughan Roberts. Stephen Cottrell, in his speech to synod, also called for a settlement. I wish you well.
For what it’s worth I thank you for taking the time to try. I think your “settled observation” is the correct one. For those who seek a CofE that fully embraces the lives and loves of LGBT people there is little to be gained from such a settlement. In the time it took to iron out the legalities of such an arrangement the facts on the ground (and indeed in synod) are likely to have shifted. Equal marriage will ultimately be available in the CofE, and few people will choose to leave over it, just as few chose to leave… Read more »
I was a supporter of a negotiated settlement until I read the latest CEEC material. Although the bishops have apologised for the treatment of LGBT Christians, CEEC appears unrepentant. Until that changes, I don’t see any realistic prospect of safeguarding the vulnerable. Without contrition from CEEC, I don’t see the possibility of a comprehensive settlement that will stop the fighting.
This statement is on the CEEC website. “CEEC repents of those times when we have failed to offer a Christ-like welcome to those who identify as LGBTQIA including those who are gay but have chosen to live a celibate life in keeping with biblical teaching.”
That’s not an apology.
I think your presence here has been valuable, Peter. It is all too easy for tribes to end up talking to themselves in echo chambers. I happen to agree with you that some kind of settlement is needed, otherwise this rancour and attrition will just go on forever, or the Church may divide more messily. However, my personal view is that an alliance has been formed between a packed group of ‘liberal’ members in General Synod, and the majority of bishops. Basically, these lay people are eseentially not rocking the boat, in return for the hope that the ‘Slippery slope’… Read more »
It is increasingly frustrating to me that people seem to be developing more deeply entrenched positions. I minister in a situation where I am in frequent contact with young people (largely late primary phase to early secondary phase), and see a huge number of people who are on the fringes (or beyond) of institutional church life. Among them there is a real appreciation for the reality of something that is beyond the material – that is truly spiritual (in terms of transcending human experience). There is also an openness to understanding this in terms of a world that is created… Read more »