a recommendation...

So, it’s Father’s Day, and we’re in the midst of a series exploring the relationship between family, Church family and discipleship. We are likely already painfully aware of the chasm that exists between much of our culture’s thinking and practise around family life and a Christian’s. It’s a hard judgement to make, but one of the places where that chasm might be at its widest, and perhaps at its most antagonistic, is in relation to boys.

Seriously - it’s almost impossible to find any meaningful point of contact between the Church’s vision for raising boys to men, and our society’s. The fact that we be may largely unaware (at least consciously) of those tensions, speaks powerfully of the extent we have been evangelised by our culture! There are a number of really helpful books on this - but here is a particular recommendation for Father’s Day.

It isn’t an explicitly Christian book. It’s brilliantly well researched (though largely from an American context, you can recognise much that is reflected in British culture and societal values), it’s unbelievably readable, and if you are a parent of boys, will likely move you to tears… both of relief and of sorrow, and out of a sense that there might be a constructive way through!!

You can find out more here: https://boycrisis.org/

Father's Day... it can be complicated!

Days like today (Father’s Day) are complicated celebrations that seem to underline in so many ways the heart-breaking tensions of living in a fallen world...

On the one hand we definitely want to celebrate fathers in a world that so often denigrates them, and characterises them as sometimes well-meaning, but incompetent at best, and downright dangerous or ‘toxic’ at worst. They can routinely be dismissed as a useful addition if present, but not a real loss when absent, which stereotypically they are often protrayed as being.  And when they are present, it is often suggested they are best seen as a second mum.   There are exceptions, but they are precisely that... exceptions.

It’s tricky to navigate a positive vision for fatherhood in such a cultural context. As with everything else, the place to go is Scripture. The idea of ‘Dad’ was God’s! And His vision for family life is good and wise. His vision is for a man who reflets Him to his children and who - whatever else he does to provide for and protect his family - will lead and structure his family’s life in such a way that ensures his children willl grow up in the training and instruction of the Lord. It is a picture of strength, courage, initiative, and boldness. It captures tenderness, wisdom, strength, respect and responsibility. It is Dad who bears primary (not exclusive) responsibilty before God for the spiritual wellbeing of his family. And it is Dad who takes the lead in teaching his children the obedience he wants to see them one day exhibit in their own walk with their heavenly Father.

And yet – like in so much of our world – our Father’s vision for fatherhood is tragically marred. The complicated reality of a world that ignores Him trips us up, and hinders our celebration of God’s idea, and our supporting fathers as they grow into God’s vision for their place in their family.

As a result, there are so many ways today can be a day of pain. Memories of our own fathers are not always joyous, but can be scarred by abandonment, neglect, betrayal or suffering. Relationships with our Dads today are not always straightforward, and can be the cause of ongoing frustration and tears. There are those who have so desperately wanted to be fathers, but the circumstances of their lives have meant those hopes and dreams lie broken and unfulfilled. Many feel judged. Some are profoundly aware of their failure as Dads on a day to day basis; for others ‘Father’s Day’ is an agonising reminder of decisions we would give anything to go back and make again. Others find in their children a source of tremendous confusion and grief. Even the most wholehearted and joyous celebration of Father’s Day will be tainted with sorrow.

As Christians we are to ‘mourn with those who mourn’ (Rom.12:15). In one sense, our focus should be on the broken, the wounded, the sinner and the sinned against. This is righteous. Our faith gives us the courage to face life as it really is, and not to have to pretend. Yet the same verse (Rom.12:15) also commands us to ‘rejoice with those who rejoice’. Our concern for the wounded can often lead us to forego the rejoicing and to mute our celebration in ways that are inappropriate and corrosive. Or we can lose balance the other way, and disregard the wounded in thoughtless rejoicing. But this is not the way of the Scriptures.

As Christians, we are to honour those who are worthy of honour, and give them the recognition they deserve (Rom.13:7). This is rarely done in our world, and the Church dare not follow suit. Churches must maintain a holy and healthy balance. We cry out to God both to heal the wounded, and in gratitude for what is worthy of honour; both for grace to cover our failure and in praise for when God has enabled us to be faithful in our calling.

Only at the Cross can we find the resources to maintain this balance. Only here can we learn to look beyond ourselves and our own situation, and to enter into the experience of another with such total empathy, so that those who mourn can rejoice with those who rejoice, and those who rejoice can mourn with those who mourn. The integrity of neither is compromised. For us all, we may find that as we obey His call, God is at work in us far more than we had anticipated.

And as we confront the complicated nature of today’s celebration of fatherhood, we find our hearts aching again for the holy simplicity of the New Creation, when ‘there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away’ (Rev.21:4). This is our future in Christ, and on that day our joy will no longer be complicated, or tainted. It will be complete in and through Him, and the fulfilment of His work. That is our hope in Christ. And it is a hope that radically relativizes everything in this old, passing age. It relativizes both the joy and sorrow, and ironically perhaps even the institution of fatherhood, and of our love for our fathers.

Passages like Mark 10:29-30 and Luke 14:26 relate the disturbing words of Jesus. His teaching calls us to a total allegiance to Christ that undermines even our love for the parents who have raisde us. Our love for ‘Dad’ (and his love for us), and the relationship we may enjoy with him (and that he enjoys with us) must be understood in the context of our much deeper love for Christ and a much more compelling relationship with Him. Ultimately we are delivered from this present age and delivered into the Kingdom of Heaven, where there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, or I wonder, father or child… while our citizenship is in heaven, our pilgrimage remains through this old creation and this old age. While here, we are called to ‘honour our father’, but only in such a way that truly we are honouring Christ. Neither we nor our fathers should expect more than this. Perhaps this is the most complicated thing of all.

In Christ,

Mark

How does Christ execute the office of a King?

Just a reminder from last evening’s service. Thanks to all involved in providing afternoon tea and crafts!!

WSC Qu.26. (for kids!)

In subduing us to Himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all His – and our – enemies.

WLC Qu.45. (for adults!)

Christ executes the office of king in calling out of the world a people to Himself, in giving them officers, laws and censures, by which He visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon His elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming their enemies; And powerfully ordering all things for His own glory and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God and obey not the Gospel.

And here’s a blast from the past:

and a whole different post-it note crisis

just for fun… if you have those sort of friends!!

Easter Sunday rocks!

Article 4: The Resurrection of Christ

Christ truly rose again from death, and took again His body with flesh, bones and all that belongs to the completeness of human nature. In this body he ascended into heaven, where He is now seated until the last day, when He will return to judge all humanity.

“…so highly comforting is this article to our consciences that it is the very lock and key of all our Christian religion and faith … it pleased our Saviour to not withdraw Himself straightaway from the bodily presence and sight of the disciples, but over a period of forty days, to declare himself to them by many and various, (and strong), arguments and evidences that He had conquered death and that He was truly risen again to life. He began, Luke tells us, at Moses and all the Prophets and expounded to them all the prophecies that were written in all the Scriptures about Him … He sent His angels to the tomb … He Himself appeared … He ate with them, and as He ate with them, He taught them of the everlasting Kingdom of God, and assured them of the truth of his resurrection.

Just as our Saviour was diligent - for our comfort and instruction - to declare His resurrection, so let us be as diligent in our belief and reception of it - for our comfort and instruction.

As He died not only for Himself, so He also rose not only for Himself. He died to put away sin, and rose that we might rise to righteousness. His death destroyed death, and overcame Satan who held the power of death. Death is swallowed up in Christ’s victory and hell is spoiled for ever. If death could not keep Christ under its dominion and power, then it is clear that the power of death has been overcome. And if death is conquered, it follows that sin (of which death was appointed as wages) must also be destroyed. If sin and death is vanquished, then is the devil’s tyranny vanquished … Thus His resurrection has wrought for us life and righteousness. He passed through death and hell, … so that by His strength we might do the same. He paid the ransom of sin that it should not be laid to our charge. He destroyed the devil and his tyranny, taking from him his captives. He has raised us and set us with Him among the citizens of heaven.

And from now on that is where our citizenship remains. We look to a Divine Saviour, who will change our bodies of sin and death so that they will become like His glorious body, and He will do it by the same power by which He Himself rose from the dead, and by which He will subdue all things to Himself.

Consider then, how we may throughout our life, declare our faith in this article, framing our life to it, rising daily from sin to righeousness and holiness of life. What a folly it would be, having been granted such righteousness to lose it again in our daily decisions… having been delivered from the sin of this world of death, to become entangled again in it … to turn back again from the holy commandment God has given us. If you delight in this article, then follow His example of resurrection! We have been buried with Christ in our baptism, let us die daily to sin, killing every evil desire and aspiration. As Christ was raised from the dead, let us rise to new life, and walk continuously in it. Live in Christ!

…taken from Cranmer’s Easter Sermon

An Homily of the Resurrection of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

For Easter Day.

Heidelberg Catechism: Lord’s Day 17

45.Q. HOW DOES CHRIST'S RESURRECTION BENEFIT US?

A.First,by his resurrection he has overcome death,so that he could make us share in the righteousness which he had obtained for us by his death. 1 Second,by his power we too are raised up to a new life. 2 Third,Christ's resurrection is to us a sure pledge of our glorious resurrection. 3

• 1.Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:16-20; 1 Pet 1:3-5.

• 2.Rom 6:5-11; Eph 2:4-6; Col 3:1-4.

• 3.Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:12-23; Phil 3:20, 21.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q.52. How was Christ exalted in His resurrection?

Christ was exalted in His resurrection in that, not having seen corruption in death (in which it was not possible for Him to be held), and having the same body in which He suffered … really united with His soul, He rose from the dead on the third day by His own power, declaring Himself to be the Son of God, to have satisfied divine justice, to have vanquished death, and to be Lord of both the living and the dead. All of this He did as a public person (i.e. a representative), as the Head of His Church, for their justification, their being brought to life through grace, for support against their enemies, and to assure them of their resurrection from the dead at the last day.

A post-it note crisis

Looking around the Church of England, leaves you with a disturbing sense of fragmentation. There is talk of principled protest at a national level; there is already evidence of ‘visible differentiation’ with clergy setting up their own independent structures of fellowship and support; ordinands are refusing to be ordained; people - clergy and lay - are simply leaving; parish shares are being withheld; new alternative Anglican Structures (i.e. not Church of England) have been set up and are functioning within the UK - granted for some time, but with a new significance in the light of LLF. And all that is before you raise your eyes to look at the Global Anglican situation!

A photo taken at a recent Bishop’s gathering inadvertently showed in the background a wall of post-it notes of the Bishop’s concerns about where the LLF process - or more honestly, where the House of Bishops - has taken us. It makes dismal reading: Loss of vocations, missional energy, and unity. Schism. Confusion. Not just the fracture of the CofE but its complete disintegration. Strained and broken relationships in families, churches, dioceses, and the global Church. Splitting dioceses. Division within (if we proceed), ridicule without (if we step back). That ‘cancel culture’ will prove more dominant than grace-filled love and acceptance. Irrelevance.

Indeed. But then again, it’s hard to imagine how any of that could be unexpected. People have been saying the results would include all of this and more since LLF was conceived, and the materials first published. The Bishops finally realising the possible outcomes of their actions doesn’t do much to alleviate the pain that many of us have been feeling over recent months, whilst those entrusted with the spiritual leadership of our Church have blundered their way towards the ‘complete disintegration’ of our denomination. Mind you, none of this made it to the press briefing. That simply alerted us to the setting up of a series of working parties focussed on Pastoral Guidance; the liturgy of the proposed prayers; and pastoral reassurance. So, pressing on then …towards the complete disintegration of one of the greatest denominations to be born out of the Reformation. No official acknowledgment of the pastoral chaos we’re already living with? No apology for the trauma already caused and the losses already sustained courtesy of the LLF process? No suggestion of a change in direction… you know, to avoid chaos, division, schism, broken relationships, irrelevance?

Apparently not.

That last one is ironic of course. Given that the whole LLF project was ostensibly initiated (in part) precisely in the name of ‘relevance’. It was always a spurious claim, albeit one dressed up in the spiritualised language of ‘mission’. But I always thought a misguided sense of ‘relevance’ was closer to the mark. It is a misguided vision of relevance because it is built on the idea that the way to make Christianity ‘successful’ is to evacuate it of everything that is distinctively Christian. But hey, at least we might avoid ridicule by not stepping back from the brink.

Of course, the issue is much deeper than the pragmatism that has driven the House of Bishops into their present and myopic disarray. I read earlier this week a helpful analysis that gives us a sense of what is at stake. The Cambridge historian Richard Rex suggests that there have been three great crises in the history of the Church. The first, in its early centuries, revolved around the question of the nature of God. This first crisis, during the Patristic era wrestled with the Bible’s teaching on the Trinity, and the Incarnation, and gave birth to the great ecumenical creeds. During the Reformation, a second crisis navigated the question of the nature of the Church (inlcuding ministry, polity, sacraments, preaching etc.). Rex argues we are living through a third crisis of comparable magnitude, and the question facing us now is that of the nature of humanity. This includes – as he memorably puts it – to ‘an entire alphabet of beliefs and practices: abortion, bisexuality, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, family, gender, homosexuality, infertility treatment…’. It’s a disturbing thesis. The first two crises were fairly devestating to live through at a number of levels.

To be honest, I’m not sure that a wall of post-it notes really does the situation justice. Though, I’m not sure what could. The first two crises the Church navigated produced some of the greatest pastors and theologians the Church has seen. People are still writing their PhDs on the work of Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, (if I may be allowed to include him) Augustine, and the like. Likewise those who helped us through the second crisis. Names such as Calvin, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Ursinus, Cranmer are indicative of host of luminaries who fought for Biblical truth against those who obscured it in a mist of what seemed obvious and incontrovertible to the Church leaders of the day. Interestingly, in both crises, the mission / relevance card was played!

We pray for the Lord to raise up a legion of pastor-theologians to help us navigate this third crisis. It looks like we’re going to need them!

sources for the photo and associated story: Anglican Ink,

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-lost-shepherds-can-justin-welby-and-pope-francis-keep-their-flocks/

Ephesians 5 & Gender

There is one other place where I might find myself in some measure of agreement with the Bishops: their dis-ease at objectifying people by talking about their sexuality. I say ‘might’ because I’m not entirely sure what the Bishops mean. If they are saying that their vision of what it means to be human is more than our experience of sexuality, then I suspect I agree. Indeed, one of the isssues I find most disingenuous about our culture is the idea that our experience of sexuality has such power to define us in our entirety, or even in our essentiality. We are inherently sexual beings, but not essentially so. I am not less human if my sexuality never finds expression in sexual activity.

But if it is suggesting that what it means to be human is without reference to our experience of sexuality, that would be a different matter. One of the most tragic elements of the whole debacle surrounding the Bishops’ Proposals has been precisely the reductionism of the debate. Everything has become about our experience of sexuality. Nothing else seems to matter. And worse, it has all been reduced to the very specific experience of sexuality of small minority of Christians. The following from CMF:

Even when studies have attempted to use broadly comparable definitions of 'orientation', rates of SSA appear to vary in different populations. This may be due to unreliable methods used to measure SSA or real differences caused by social, cultural and biological factors; we do not know. Overall, however, studies suggest that significant numbers of people from western populations, around 10-15% of men and 20-25% of women, experience a degree of SSA at some time in their lives. A much smaller proportion appear to be 'predominantly' same-sex attracted, probably about 2.0-2.5% of men and 1.5-1.75% of women.

https://www.cmf.org.uk/resources/publications/content/?context=article&id=2078, accessed 080323

And it is always worth remembering that not all of those who are ‘predominantly’ same-sex attracted believe the Church should change its teaching and disicpline. But their voice seems to have been lost in the cacophany of virtue signalling.

One of the pastoral tragedies of the whole LLF process has been the failure of the Church to put this in the context of a much broader discussion about our experience of sexuality, and the range of struggle and depth of complexity of that experience. That aside, I fear that our own Bishops veer to defining our humanity without necessary reference to our experience of sexuality, or indeed gender. That is a strong claim, but it is born out of a part of the conversation that suggested (at the very least) that the vision for marriage as reflecting the relationship between Jesus and the Church (with specfic reference to Eph.5:22-33) is non-gendered.

I suspect it is all too easy to mis-represent the Bishops’ intention or meaning in this part of the conversation. It was brief and almost a throw-away line in the context of a wider reflection on the ‘sacramental nature’ of marriage. I think the point being made was that there was nothing in the sacramental dynamics of marriage (or the covenantal dynamics for that matter) that could not in principle be reflected in a same sex relationship…

But even then, it seems like a very odd thing to say. In part because of the implicit claim that we understand what Paul is saying deeply enough to so confidently dismiss the place of gender in this passage. That would be strange in light of how often we’ve been told that we don’t really know what Paul (and presumably other Apostles, and Prophets) meant given our distance from their cultural context.

But in part because, well it’s an image that runs throughout Scripture, and self-evidently always references a heterosexual marriage. It isn’t as though Paul picked this image out of thin air when writing to the Ephesians. Throughout the entire Bible (OK, almost the entire Bible… from Gen.1:26, through to Rev.21), the same image is repeatedly used, and it is always rooted in the specifically structured experience of a man and woman that is marriage. Not once is it ever reflected in a same-sex relationship. And always it is the Lord who is pictured as a husband / bridegroom, and the Church that is represented by a bride. Whole books are given over to exploring this sacramental analogy (e.g. Hosea!), and it is one that is referred to regularly by the Prophets, and by Christ Himself. And again, never is it protrayed in the context of a same-sex relationship, marital or otherwise. Which is to say at least that the differentiation in marriage is as important in this regard as the unity? And that the expression of our sexualtiy within that covenant (and only within that covenant) is integral to the integrity of that portrayal. For the record my own thinking is that it correlates to worship. But that’s another blog post!

Back to the matter at hand: to suggest that we can dismiss the gender of marriage partners without doing violence to the sacramental / covenantal / analogical or otherwise of marriage contains suggests a depth of insight into the relationship between Christ and the Church that is surely beyond us. I would suggest that we would be better served by allowing the picture of marriage to remain as God intended and presents it, and to allow it as such to teach us what God intended it to teach us. To assume we understand enough of it to change it without (inadvertently?) affecting our doctrine of Christ is inconceivable.

I say inadvertently, but… is there a link here with another proposal that has recently found voice within the Church of England: that we de-gender our vision of God as revealed in Christ (and to be clear, I haven’t heard either of our Bishops propose this!)?. It does seem likely that the two proporsals are in fact symptomatic of a deeper theological crisis. Again, there is a hubris at work that is deeply troubling. The most charitable reading is that we sufficiently understand all that God has revealed Himself to be confident that we can change our language of address to God, without affecting any aspect of our understanding of God.

It is almost to obvoius to point out the irony that whilst there is an intolerance about not using people’s preferred pronouns, we have little angst about disregarding God’s preferred pronouns. The point isn’t entirely facetious. We understand that how we describe ourselves, and each other matters. Langauge conveys our sense of reality. To argue that we can change our langauge about God without affecting our sense of the reality of who God is, is implausible. But not content with that, we are told that we can somehow see ‘behind’ how God has revealed Himself, and who God has revealed Himself to be, to who God really is. And further, that we can be so confident that who He ‘really’ is, is so different from who He has revealed Himself to be that we can change how we speak of Him without affecting the reality of our understanding of Him.

None of which is to undermine the feminine imagery used for God. But in Scripture God is never called Mother, or Queen. The Anglican Church has in this, as in other matters of faith, chosen historically to allow the Bible to shape our approach to God and our address of Him. Jesus himself referred to God as ‘Father’ 170 times in the Gospels. Have we really got to the point where we think we know better than Jesus how to talk about God?

Of course, we are free to change our vision of God and our langauge about God from taht bequeathed by Scripture, and by Jesus… but that would take us into a different religion.

What is human flourishing? And where does it happen?

Up to this point, I confess to being surprised that there are no ‘positive’ arguments from the Bishops for their position. They don’t cite a single passage from Scripture, or example from the history of the Church, they don’t lay out a constructive vision for same-sex relationships, nor their envisaged place in the life of the Church. Throughout the majority of their videos they adopt a ‘negative’ posture, seeking (I think unsuccessfully) to remove the obstacles they rightly perceive the teaching of the Bible and the Church present. The strategy seems to be thus to undermine the foundation of the Church’s historic position, knowing that once the foundation is sufficiently undermined in people’s thinking, the edifice will fall, and the position of the Church will change. And that is the now publicly stated ambition of both Bishops.

There is however one argument they deploy that seeks to establish a positive mandate for the change they wish to see, and it is the argument about human flourishing. We need to recognise first that neither Bishop tells us what human flourishing actually is. This seems a strange omission from the dialogue, but perhaps it is due to the unrehearsed nature of the conversation. The idea seems to embrace a plethora of related aspirations, including wellbeing, happiness, and life satisfaction. It is associated with success and healthy personal development. More technically, The Human Flourishing Programme at Harvard University has developed a matrix for measuring such ‘flourishing’, rooted in five key ideas: happiness and life satisfaction, mental and physical health, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, and close social relationships.

It is a strange thing to hear Bishops of the Church espousing such a secularised vision for life. A more authentically Christian vision for humanity might define human flourishing in relationship to Christ. Mind you, once we put the concept of ‘human flourishing’ next to Scripture we find it an uncomfortable fit. If the concept can be inferred from the pages of the Bible at all, it is markedly different from the ideal finding common currency in our culturally angst-ridden debates.

The Bible is much more concerned about our being transformed into the image of Christ. ‘Faithfulness’ is a word that captures the dynamics of discipleship far more than ‘flourishing’, at least in any contemporary usage. By God’s grace there are times when faithfulness allows for ‘flourishing’, but where such a culturally conditioned idea of ‘flourishing’ and a Christian call to ‘faithfulness’ conflict, as they must surely do, it is the desire for faithfulness that captures our heart. For many Christians in the world today the idea of ’human flourishing’ is laughable. To be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is to take up the cross, to follow a crucified Saviour. It is to embark on a journey of marginalisation, rejection, persecution and suffering. It is precisely to lose many of the trappings that our indulgent, self-serving culture now assumes as inalienable rights! We saw in Synod a contemptuous disregard for the Church elsewhere in the world. But it remains a simple statement of fact that their vision of discipleship is far more profoundly Biblical than the pursuit of ‘human flourishing’ by those Church leaders who are already amongst the most culturally privileged in the world. It is bizarre to find this parody of life being peddled by Christian pastors.

But back to the videos put out by the Bishops! By-passing any reflection on the nature of Christian discipleship, we are instead left with the grandiose vision of ‘human flourishing’. Given the lack of detail about what this entails, it is perhaps a little surprising that the Bishops are quite so adamant that the best environment for such flourishing is marriage. Their basis for saying as much is entirely subjective and anecdotal. There is no evidence or research offered for such a claim, nor is there any engagement with Scripture, or Christian teaching or tradition. It all feels incredibly arbitrary. We are told that we know more about sexual orientation than we did two thousand years ago… maybe, but does God?

And as another Bishop recently wrote: ‘The Church cannot hold a public service for a couple simply on the basis that it discerns virtues and good qualities in their relationship. It must also be confident that the pattern of relationship it is affirming is in accordance with God’s will. It expresses that confidence liturgically by proclaiming a form of life which is in accordance with God’s will and asking the couple to affirm publicly that they seek to live faithfully within this way of life (para 476, Bishop Keith Sinclair’s Dissenting Statement). Indeed.

Of course, once we do ask what the Bible teaches about what is in accordance with God’s will, it becomes painfully clear that there is some measure of dissonance. Given the divergent destiny in view, it is hardly surprising that there is such discord between the Bishops and Scripture on the place of marriage in the pursuit of that destiny. To say that marriage is the ‘best environment’ for human flourishing is to misunderstand not just the Bible’s vision for human life, but is also to distort the Bible’s vision for marriage. It is also pastorally catastrophic. Bad theology hurts people. And the Bishops’ comments on this matter have been hugely damaging to many in our own Church and in many others, who feel ‘betrayed’ and deeply undermined in the (often sacrificial) decisions they have made about how to live in a way that resonates with the discipline of the Church.

To say that marriage is the best environment for human flourishing is - at best - hopelessly inadequate, and more likely simply plain wrong. The BCP does indeed celebrate marriage as being ‘ordained for the mutual society, help and comfort’ of a husband and wife, ‘both in prosperity and adversity’. It is a way of life ordained by God and made holy… but only one way. There are other ways, equally valid and at least equally providing a context in which we can pursue faithfulness to the Christian vision for Christ-likeness. But the Bishops’ claim goes way beyond such a humble and Biblical idea.

To set marriage up as the best environment for human flourishing is a politically cynical sleight of hand, preparing the ground for the follow on question as to why it should be withheld from same sex couples, especially those in ‘permanent, faithful, stable relationships’. The Bishops’ pay tribute to those who have opened their eyes, we are told, to ‘gay partnerships that have provided a context of flourishing’. As we have seen, that may be irrelevant to the question of Christian discipleship, but more importantly, the Bishops’ have raised huge questions about the experience of those in our congregations who have never married, or who are divorced, widowed, or separated. Those who for range of circumstances, often beyond their control, will not marry, or who are no longer involved in a marriage, are seemingly denied the ‘best environment’ for their flourishing.

Again, quite apart from whether ‘flourishing’ is a worthy, or even appropriate, goal for Christians, this is in flat contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. St. Paul spends some considerable time on precisely this question (See I Cor.7, and the sermons preached on this passage which can be found elsewhere on this website). Although if we accept the Bishops’ approach to Scripture (see a previous post in this series) we may have to disregard Paul’s teaching here as hopelessly blinkered by his own personal issues and his first-century prejudice. But I, for one, am unwilling to lose his brilliant, Spirit-inspired and pastorally sensitive insights on the grounds of such flimsy conjecture. Paul’s vision for Church life, celebrating as he does the range of human experience as so many God-ordained contexts for discipleship, seems far more spiritually enriching, healthy and appropriate than the skewed, narrow, and excluding parameters being laid out by those advocating a change in the historic discipline, teaching and Canons of the Church.

And on this basis we must demur from the Bishops’ vision for love. Again and again it is claimed that such change would be ‘loving’. Love determines how we interpret Scripture; love is not about self-indulgence, but seeks the flourishing, the good of the other; love is the basis of our unity (presumably in the face of the disunity the Bishops’ Proposals have engendered...). Again and again the Bishops posit ‘love’ as the foundation for their thinking and their ambition in this regard. It is a claim for the moral high ground. But it is misplaced nonetheless. And it unravels at preceisley the same point. Christians seek faithfulness above flourishing. Of course properly understood, faithfulness to Christ is the ultimate in human flourishing, but as we have seen, that isn’t what the phrase is being used to mean. Which is the problem. Love is about redemption and discipleship. It seeks the sanctification of the other. That is ‘the good of the other’, but it doesn’t necessarily equate to ‘flourishing’. The conflating of those two ideas is as unfortunate as it is misleading. Our love for each other is structured in the context of our love for God. And love for God, throughout Scripture is inexorably linked to the question of faithfulness, to walking in the way of His commands and statutes. It is never loving to uncouple a human life from God’s vision for that life.

Still respectfully disagreeing about the nature of Scripture

One of the most unsettling features of the Bishops’ v-logs is the uncertainty they exhibit in handling the Bible. Again and again we are left with the sense that interpreting the Bible is an amibguous and hazardous process, and one that we can engage only with hesitancy, and certainly not with confidence.

This is a common ‘myth’ and I summarised the Bishops’ position like this in the last blog:

‘…that those texts were authored in a fog of first century cultural context and prejudice. They almost certainly weren’t dealing with the kind of stable, faithful, relationships we see same sex Christian couples enjoying in our own day and age. They represent the authors’ best guess at the time, and were never meant to be representative of a timeless morality.

There are at least two fundamental contentions in this statement, both of which I disagree with. The first is to do with the nature of the Bible. We’ve been working on this at DTP throughout this term, so we should be fairly familiar with what the Bible is, and how it functions in Christian life and worship. We have seen over and over again how the Prophets and Apostles were fully aware of their involvment in the inspiration of Scripture, and that they joyfully submitted to a glorious tyranny of the Spirit. And that their preaching, teachings and writings that resulted from that process were immediately recognised as Scripture by the Church. Their teaching formed a ‘canon’, a measuring rod against which all other teachings were measured, and were to be rejected to the extent that they deviated from the foundational teaching of the Apostles. Their proclamation was as counter-cultural in the first century as it was in the twenty-first century, and it is simply inaccurate to imagine they wrote in a way that was blinded by their own cultural prejudice, as if that served to justify rejecting the binding nature of their teaching for our own time.

This much is unambiguous, and known by all disicples of Jesus who take the time to read the Apostles’ account of their own experience. It is clear to the point of self-evident. The idea that the Apostles were unaware of their being inspired by the Spirit, or that they were able to (inadvertently) contaminate the Bible they were invovled in producing with their own uninspired thinking, or that the wider Church could hardly be expected to appreciate what was happening is patently unBiblical and simply a fictional re-writing of history. It is woefully out of step with the Church of England’s own teaching, and the testimony of the Church throughout the centuries. This much is simply rehearsing what we have been reflecting on at DTP this term, but I include briefly for the sake of completeness.

What the Bishops are proposing is in fact a kind of Arianism, re-invented and re-focussed not on the Person of Christ, but on the work of the Spirit in inspiring Scripture. Arius was so sure that he knew what it meant to be human that he couldn’t conceive that in Christ all the fulness of Deity could dwell in bodily form. He ended up ‘degrading’ Christ from His Deity so that He would fit into Arius’ sense of what might be possible and plausible. A Jesus (thought Arius) who has integrity as a human being cannot be God. The position deployed by revisionists makes the same move in regard to the Scriptures. In order for Scripture to be ‘fully human’ documents, we cannot conceive how they can also be ‘fully Divine’. And Arian-like, we sacrifice the reality that this is fully the work of the Spirit on the altar of what we assume it must mean to recognise the full human-ness of the text.

But the other part of the argument is every bit as dubious. The idea that human sexual experience was so fundamentally different in the first century that anything said about it cannot have relevance to our own cultural norms. This is at best a red-herring. It certainly sows confusion in the debate… and in my more cynical moments my suspicion is that is precisely what it is designed to do. For irrespective of whether stable, faithful sexual relationships (of any kind) were formed apart from and outside of Christ’s vision for marriage - and surely they were - the fact remains that all such sexual activity is forbidden by Scripture. Which is not to say - of course - that it didn’t happen anyway, both within and without the Church. But imposing anachronistically our concepts of sexuality on what may or may not have been the cultural norms of any given context is (ironically) the very kind of intellectual imperialism of which the Bishops are accusing those who hold to the traditional teaching and discipline of the Church. We stand by that teaching and discipline, which has been held (albeit usually imperfectly) by the Church throughout the centuries and in every cultural context. And the idea that in our western, liberal, secular, humanist culture we have finally reached a place in our understanding that allows us to properly understand things in a way that has never been done before is as arrogant as it is problematic.

Does this mean that only those who enter into ‘holy matrimony’ are destined to know fulfilment? Listening to our Bishops you could be forgiven for thinking so. Is witholding ‘Holy Matrimony’ from same-sex couples a kind of oppression, meaning they need to forego the ‘goods of marriage’? Is reminding oruselves that the Bible excludes all sexual activity outside of Holy Matrimony tantamount to harming people, condemning them to a perpetual lack of fulfilling their God-given potential? This will be the subject of our next post.

Can the House of Bishops survive?

The Bishop of Coventry, Christopher Cocksworth, who is also the Chair of the Co-ordinating Group for Living in Love and Faith published an open letter a few days ago offering some relections on where things currently stand in the LLF Process. Bishop Cocksworth signed a letter defending the Church of England’s actual teaching on marriage, and acknowledging that:

many Christians in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, together with Christians from across the churches of world Christianity, continue to believe that marriage is given by God for the union of a man and woman and that it cannot be extended to those who are of the same sex.

His most recent letter is a masterpiece of diplomacy, recognising serious problems, but holding out the hope that they can be resolved. It is optimistic (I think overly!) about the prospect for the future, whilst trying to grasp the obstacles that threaten now to derail the entire LLF project. It remains however, an incredibly troubling read.

First is the persitent sophistry and casuistry that bedevils much of the official language about the Bishops’ Proposals. We are told there is a difference between praying God’s blessing of something, and praying His blessing for it… that the prayers ask for God’s blessing on the people, not the relationship… and we are reminded that the propsoals are ‘neither contrary to nor indicative of any departure from the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter…’. The trouble is that no-one apart from the Bishops themselves seem to accept the legitimacy of such subtle distinctions… more specifically, no-one apart from the Bishops of the Church of England, as witnessed by the GSFA Primates and numerous statements rejecting such distinctions as playing with words. Being told something is not indicative of a departure from the Church of England’s doctrine sounds disingenuous when the same Bishops are explicitly styling the Proposals precisely as a step towards the change of that doctrine; or to cite Bishop Cockswrth’s letter itself, which speaks of ‘communications of individual bishops welcoming probable, in their minds, future changes to teaching practice including, in the not-too-distant future, to marriage’. The line between subtlty and obfuscation is so thin many aren’t sure whether it is there or not. Indeed, many are feeling that, from some quarters at least, there is a deliberate attempt to deceive and to confuse. This is hardly characteristic of the godly leadership we hope for from our Bishops.

Then there is the tacit admission that the House of Bishops seemed unaware of the depth of opposition to this move throughout the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion. Such disconnectedness from the Church they are seeking to lead is deeply troubling. The implication that ‘some evangelical bodies’ would have opposed anything resulting from LLF is an unfortunate misrepresentation. But that aside, the sense that the Bishops were clueless as to the ‘suspicion, bewilderment, consternation and … rejection’ caused by their Proposals from across vast swathes of the Church suggests a leadership culture that is dangerously unrepresentative of, and unconnected to, the wider Church. This has to be addressed. The question of how the Bishops will respond now that they are growing in their awareness is one that needs to be urgently answered.

And as if that isn’t enough… I actually welcome the frank recognition that the process of LLF has resulted in confusion both in the House of Bishops and then, inevitably, at Synod, and throughout the Church of England. Bishop Cocksworth acknowledges the ‘systemic disruption’ that has resulted. There is something refreshing about someone recognising that the fall out from General Synod and the behaviour of some of the Bishops has been dangeorusly close to toxic. I was equally appreciative of the admission that something went wrong with the Ecclesial process. I don’t think the admission went far enough, limiting itself to the rather tentative question as to whether things might have been a bit rushed. I’ve written in a previous blog about my own feeling that the House of Bishops have ridden roughshod over the strucutresof governance in the Church, and the very ‘pastoral principles’ they themselves propounded during LLF; and that their behaviour at Synod came perilously close to an outright abuse of power… remember the sutatined applause when Stephen Hoffmyer raised his point of order!?? But the Bishop’s musings do recognise the erosion of respect and trust the House of Bishops has sustained. He hopes that it can be re-built and that lasting damage can be avoided. This seems to reflect the same disconnectedness I lament earlier… although I pray my own cynicism here will be confounded!

But the best (worst?) comes towards th end of the letter, when Bishop Cocksworth lists out a (representative?) list of questions that need to be answered before Pastoral Guidance is published in July. Forgive me simply re-producing them en masse here, but they have to be seen to be believed!

There are legal questions:

Is the provision genuinely consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England, and does it pass the strict canonical test it has set itself?

Is its distinction (novel for the Church of England) between civil marriage and Holy Matrimony secure?

There are practical questions:

How is the conscience of clergy and parishes who find themselves unable to use some or all of the liturgical provision to be respected?

What level of pastoral provision will be needed for those who could not use them, and should it involve, as many are arguing and as the Archbishop of York conceded in the debate, serious forms of structural differentiation?

Will clergy of the same sex be free to enter into civil marriage?

There are theological questions:

Can the distinction between blessing a couple as people before God, rather than their relationship, carry the theological weight that is placed upon it?

What is the provision saying or implying about the permissibility or otherwise of sexual intimacy in relationships of the same sex, and in opposite sex relationships that the Church does not recognize as marriage, and what is its theological case?

How will the Church of England explain to other churches of the Communion, and its ecumenical partners, and the other major religions of its land, what exactly it is commending and provide the necessary theological reasoning?

Ecclesial questions are raised about how, in exercising leadership, the bishops tend — as they did in the first two phases of LLF — to the ecology of the church of which their order is only one part.

You might want to read those again carefully. The fact that any one of these questions remained to be answered before they Bishops' Proposals were brought to Synod is deeply disturbing. The fact that none of them have been answered is surely a negligence of such catastrpohic proportions that it must torpedo the credibility of the entire LLF project. Are we actually being told that the House of Bishops produced these prayers without having established any theological or doctrinal foundation for doing so? Bishop Cocksworth comes frigtheningly close to admitting that the Bishops don’t yet know whether: "the provision [is] genuinely consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England?" Are we being told by the Bishop overseeing the LLF process that this was brought to General Synod, and voted on, without the House of Bishops having agreed on answers to these most basic of questions?

So, having spent 6 years on this (and at what financial cost??) the Chair of the LLF Co-ordinating Group raises the concern that as things stand, ‘the use of the provision faces legal challenge, the implementation of the proposals risks pastoral chaos, and the reception of the provision in the Church of England, the Anglican Communion, and the worldwide Church of God will be confused’.

And that is the most positive spin we can put on the situation as it now stands.

Where I must begin to respectfully disagree...

And finally we get to how our Bishops treat the question of same-sex marriage in relation to Scripture. Or perhaps better: how they treat Scripture in relation to the question of same sex marriage… because as they have now both publicly stated, this is where they wish to see the process of change terminate.

Two common and inter-related myths are perpetuated in the videos, and for the sake of clarity, I’ll give a post to each (though this may result in some overlap). They are:

(i) That there are in fact only a few texts relating to the question in the first place, and that they are ambiguous, obscure and complex, which means that how we understand them is subject to our subjective bias and perhaps even our prejudice, and,

(ii) that those texts were authored in a fog of first century cultural context and prejudice. They almost certainly weren’t dealing with the kind of stable, faithful, relationships we see same sex Christian couples enjoying in our own day and age. They represent the authors’ best guess at the time, and were never meant to be representative of a timeless morality.

So, taking the first one first. What are we to make of the claim that there are only a few texts touching on the question of same-sex relationships?

Well, we spent a whole term here at MIE showing how the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is a story about a marriage: between Christ and the Church. That is what structures our understanding and experience of marriage in human society. Whilst any given culture may feel at liberty to redefine marriage as part of its suppressing the truth about God (Rom.1:18-21), the archetypal reality that gives shape to marriage as God intended it remains unchanged. The Bishops’ Proposals tacitly acknowledge this in drawing a distinction between ‘Holy Matrimony’ as defined by the Church (see the BCP’s ‘Form of Solemnization of Matrimony), and gloriously rooted in Scripture, on the one hand; and ‘civil’ marriage, as defined by the law of the land on the other. Yet the stubborn fact remains that the whole Bible is about marriage. To say there are only a few texts that speak to the question of marriage is simply wrong. The Bishop of Oxford, in his paper on the subject, ‘Together in Love and Faith’, recognises there is a profound tension between the teaching of the Bible, and the Bishops’ desire to introduce liturgy to bless those in a same-sex relationship. He writes:

‘…all of my pastoral instincts point to finding a way of interpreting the Scriptures that allows for greater love and support, tolerance and the blessing of [same-sex] partnerships, even where this interpretation seems, at first sight, to be in conflict with some of the obvious interpretations of key biblical passages’.

There is an honesty in this sort of statement at least (though I’d question his use of the word: ‘some’). Much greater honesty than the implication that somehow the Bible doesn’t really talk about this sort of thing very much. One noted example that has become common currency in the discussion is found in the works of a theologian called Walter Wink, who would like to see revision: ‘Where the Bible mentions homosexual behaviour at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that biblical judgment is correct’ (cited, Roberts, Together in Love and Faith, a response). Indeed, and it is worth noting that this has been the how the Bible has been interpreted by the Church throughout the centuries and in every cultural context. As to the question of whether it is correct… see the next blog!

Bishop Croft (Oxford) echoes the consensus of scholars on all sides of the current debate. The Bible simply does not support the extending of marriage to same-sex couples. Jesus affirms the Bible’s teaching on these matters, and does so explicitly, and condemns all other sexual activity as ‘immorality’. He doesn’t prohibit specific behaviours. He doesn’t need to - all such activity is already precluded by the Scriptures, which He came not to abolish, but to fulfil.

To circumvent that simple and straightforward observation about the Bible’s teaching about marriage falls far short of an authentically Anglican approach to the Bible. In spite of our own Bishops recognising that the Bible should interrogate us, it seems this is one area where they aren’t prepared to let it do so. There is not a single passage that affirms same-sex ‘marriage’, or sexual activity in any context. The best a revisionist can hope for is to negate, silence and marginalise the passages that do explicitly speak to this issue, and hope that no-one notices the positive teaching about marriage that reflects the relationship between Christ and Church (which, incidently, has far more to say to us about the structures of marriage than simply it intrinsically hetero-sexual nature - but that’s for another time).

Their framing of the discussion as if it is about a few random texts is simply wrong. This is a question about the whole sweep of Scripture, in which the passages that directly speak of sexual activity and marriage fit coherently and appropriately. To seek to restrict the discussion in the way our Bishops imply is, with respect, to distort the whole framework of Biblical revelation in this matter. Article 7 of the Church of England’s 39 Articles remains: ‘No Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral’.

…and are those texts ambiguous, obscure and complex?

No. The Church has long held to the idea of the ‘clarity’ of Scripture. This isn’t to say there aren’t parts of the Bible that are difficult to understand (see II Pet.3:16). Not all parts of the Bible are equally straightforward, and some parts of the Bible are ‘entry-level’, others require a measure of spiritual maturity before they yield their riches (see e.g. I Cor.3:2). We often have to meditate prayerfully on a passage for some time before we grasp its meaning and significance. But the Bible imparts it own understanding (Ps.119:130), and the Lord is at work by His Spirit revealing truth. This means that together, we approach Biblical literature with great confidence and joyful anticipation. Much of the Bible was written to the whole Church, and the whole Church is supposed to read it and make sense of it. Certainly, Jesus expected His people to have a working understanding of the Scriptures and chastised them when they failed to do so! Similarly, the Apostle Paul was clear: ‘we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.’ (II Cor.1:13).

It was Mark Twain who once decried, ‘‘The researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness on the subject and it is probable that if they continue, we shall soon know nothing at all about it’. Unfortunately this is as true in world of Biblical Interpretation as it is in any other field. There is surprisingly little evidence and a great deal of speculation about the nature of homosexual relationships in the first century. Undoubtedly some were abusive, rooted in power dynamics, fleeting encounters. But this is true of all experiences of sexual activity. To claim that this was the only experience of same-sex relationships can’t be justified. At best it is an argument from silence, though there are strong arguments that this was not the case. There is an interesting incoherence in the revisionist position. On the one hand wanting to suggest that there have always been loving, stable, committed homosexual relationships when arguing that this is a constant feature of human experience, but suggesting that the Bible’s teaching knows nothing of such relationships when arguing that Scripture doesn’t speak against it.

Apart from anything else, there is nothing new under the sun. There has always been a vast array of sexual experiences and relationships. They may have been recognised, celebrated, illegalised or ignored by culture. But people are people. They always have been.

…and is how we understand them subject to our own bias and prejudice?

This is one of the more far-reaching suggestions in the video. I had to stop and replay it a few times to make sure I hadn’t misheard. Not only is the claim made, but Cranmer of all people is enlisted to the cause: ‘what the heart desires, the will chooses and the intellect justifies’. Of course, Cranmer’s point (and the European Reformer, Melancthon’s before him) was that we therefore had to guard our hearts and ensure that they were oriented to delight in holiness, purity and righteousness. This, for the Reformers, was the pastoral reality and responsibility that their understanding of human nature demanded. And, for the record, this was understood as a prerequisite for understanding God’s revelation of Himself. For our Bishops, everything is turned on its head. Rather than leading to clarity, it serves to obscure the truth. Those who want to be conservative (or are shaped by a conservative background) will be theologically and ethically conservative. Though importantly the knife cuts both ways: those who want to be revisionist (or who come from a liberal background) will be revisionist. ‘Often’ we are assured by our Bishop, ‘reasoning comes into this rather late in the day’.

But more seriously, do our Bishops think that we cannot be trusted to understand the Bible because we are locked into a self-fulfilling, pre-determined theological disposition in a way that precludes the idea of the Spirit breaking through our prejudices and teaching us truth through the Scriptures. Which is of course, precisely what Christians believe can and must happen as they engage with the inspired Word of God. Such a bleak prospect for being able to trustworthily handle the Bible is somewhat out of step with the Spirit’s own expectation of pastors (e.g. II Tim.2:15)… and with that of reason and tradition… and of our own experience as Christians.

The way the Cranmer quote is introduced to the conversation has precisely the opposite effect to what Cranmer intended. Cranmer’s confidence in the Bible as the Word of God is boundless. He has an incredible conviction that if he can just get the Bible into the hands (and heads and hearts, and souls) of the people (which he seeks to do through the structures of worship he developed in the BCP), then the Spirit will change our hearts, and therefore our will and minds. For our Bishops, it seems more a way of undermining that confidence, and sowing uncertainty in its place. This total loss of confidence in our Spirit-inspired ability to interpret Scripture faithfully finds expression again and again. ‘Scripture isn’t as straightforward as I thought’… and we are told variously that the Bible (on this issue at least) is ambiguous, complicated, and that there are other interpretations. But not all interpretations are equal, and in the midst of such confusion, it is clear that we can’t be trusted with the Bible, because our own prejudice blinds us to its meaning.

One of the immense recoveries of the Reformation, and one that is built into Anglicanism, properly understood, is the putting of the Scripture in the hands of the people. It is a dangerous idea. In medieval Catholicism the clerics deprived the people of the Bible, because they couldn’t be trusted to understand it properly. Do we need to fight that battle again?

On misappropriating Augustine...

In our next blog, we’ll look at how the Bishops explain their view of the nature and interpretation of Scripture. But just before we get there, I did want to raise a metaphorical eyebrow at the appearance of Augustine in the discussion. It was in relation to the question of how we interpret the Bible, and Bishop Mike alludes to a principle Augustine lays down in ‘On Christian Doctrine’ (1:36.40), ‘Whoever then thinks that he (sic) understands the Holy Scriptures or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this two-fold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought’. Augustine seems likely to be the source for the ‘goods of marriage’ language that the Bishops use in their videos too, but we’ll look at that in another post.

For Augustine, this idea of our growing in ‘double-love’ was a goal of Bible study, and through it he was rooting our interpreting of Scripture in the realm of practical discipleship. The Spirit had inspired the Bible for a purpose, which includes ‘training in righteousness’ (II Tim.3:16). The Spirit’s work in us corresponds to that purpose, and if our engagement with the God-breathed Word doesn’t result in our growth into Christ-likeness, then, to put it bluntly: we’re doing it wrong. One of Augustine’s most beautiful insights is the idea of spiritual maturity as an experiencing of correctly-ordered and correctly-directed loves. To live well is to love well (1:27, Now he is a man (sic) of just and holy life who … keeps his affections under strict control, so that he neither loves what he ought not to love, not fails to love what he ought to love, nor loves that more which ought to be loved less…) .

This is part of what the Spirit wants to achieve in us through our study of Scripture. Elsewhere in ‘On Christian Teaching’, Augustine deals with what we might call the mechanics of how to interpret the Bible, but here the goal of Biblical interpretation (or at least one of them) is in view. The dangers of getting occasional passages ‘wrong’ is mitigated by an overall interpretation of Scripture that keeps us generally on track, rather like a hiker who ends up at the right destination even though they got lost on part of the journey (On Christian Doctrine, 1:36.41). Only when we are in the New Creation, and love is complete in us, will have no further need of the Bible (On Christian Doctrine 1:39). Until then we are bound to a desperate need of that Book, and should submit gladly to it.

Which of course, all raises the question as to whether Augustine would have been comfortable being enlisted to support the idea that the Church should bless those in a same-sex relationship, or marriage; and further, whether he would rally to advocate a change to the Law of the Church to allow for ‘equal marriage’. Would Augustine have seen this as a genuine interpretation of the Bible, pointing to a rightly ordered love, as the Bishops seem to imply? Would he allow that a correct interpretation of the Bible could possibly allow for such a conclusion? I suspect we know the answer to that question, but let’s ponder it nonetheless.

Anyone who has read Augustine might feel there is rather too much insight into the ancient Bishop’s engaging with the question of sex and marriage. Certainly he is pretty open about his own disordered and chaotic sexual history, and his ongoing struggles for his vision of purity. His relationship with his sexuality was clearly something that caused him intense spiritual angst, and at times, significant confusion, and emotional pain. As a Christian, later in life, Augustine saw his sexuality as perhaps the last great obstacle to his total devotion to the Lord. On the whole, he seems rather negative about the whole thing, and generally, Augustine is not considered particularly reliable in his counsel on the matter of sexuality and marriage per se. It’s widely recognised that he falls short of the ‘whole counsel of God’ on the subject, likely over-correcting as a result of struggling with a residual dualism, conflating sex and promiscuity, and wrestling with his own proverbial demons. All of which makes him a strange source for a discussion on the subject.

But whatever we make of his own marked preference for celibacy (though he did defend the legitimacy of marriage at a time when others were calling the whole institution into question), there can be no doubt that Augustine would have fundamentally rejected the idea of same sex marriage; and along with the consistent testimony of the Early Church Fathers, would have rejected all same sex sexual activity, whether in the context of a recognised relationship or not (see e.g. Confessions 3:8:15). Without any doubt, Bishop Augustine saw the only legitimate ‘outlet’ for sexual activity to be within the covenantal (and indeed sacramental) institution of marriage. And by that, Augustine meant marriage between a husband and wife.

‘The first natural bond of human society, therefore, is that of husband and wife. God did not create them as separate individuals and bring them together as persons of a different race, but he created one from the other, making the side, from which the woman was taken and formed, a sign of the strength of their union’.

He argued that marriage cannot be redefined by the Church, primarily because it is instituted ‘externally’. In other words, it is designed by God, and we aren’t at liberty to reconstitute it in line with any given cultural expectation (although to be fair, Augustine developed this argument in relation to polygamy, arguing that marriage as between one husband and one wife … ‘is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, what was made by the Divine Being Himself’ On Marr.1:10).

Critical reflection on the insights of Augustine would lead us in a very different direction to the capitulation to culture we are witnessing in the Church of England. It might not take us to pseudo-monasticism and functionality we find in Augustine, but it will take us some considerable distance from the assumptions and outworkings of the Bishops Proposals. Augustine unpacked the relationship between our sexual hunger and idolatry. The act of sexual intercourse cannot be decoupled from Holy Matrimony, because it speaks so powerfully of the act of vulnerability and self-giving that constitutes covenantal union and worship. When sexual desire is disordered (to use Augustine’s categories) and where sexual activity transgresses in any direction, the good and wise boundaries determined by the God who created it, to that extent it comes to speak of a misdirected doxological impulse.

Which is what makes this conflict that is currently ravaging the Church of England so deeply divisive and so dangerously dissentious. It is being presented as something innocuous: simply providing some liturgy that can be used (if so wished, and with no compulsion) to bless those who have entered into a civil marriage. But beneath such inoffensive language rages a storm that threatens to tear the Church from her deepest theological moorings and indeed, her devotion to Christ. This is why so many (on both sides) see the stakes as so high, and in part what makes the Bishops’ suggestion that we can walk together, maintaining the unity of the Church so dangerously inadequate.

But in the midst of all this we do find ourselves oddly in agreement with Bishop Martin’s comment that this is a moment reminiscent of the conflicts of the sixteenth century Reformation, in which the Church of England was forged. The Reformation was, of course, an Augustinian renewal movement. And it challenged the idea of celibacy (for priests et al) that Augustine, amongst others, gave the lie to. The Church of England mandates us to reflect critically on tradition in the light of Scripture (e.g. Art.21). Augustine got that one wrong. On that point, we can see with the benefit of 1500 year’s hindsight that he was out of step with Scripture. Luther, the Augustinian monk, undestood this, and would not be moved from the Bible’s teaching. As he famously resolved at the Diet of Worms:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures and by clear reason (for I do not trust in the pope or councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.

So in a way, the fact that Augustine would not approve of being implicated in the Bishops’ position isn’t finally the point. Everything hinges - as it should do in the Church of England - on what the Bible teaches. To this we turn in our next blog.

all citations from Augustine, On Christian Doctrine are from NPNF, Vol.2, ed. Schaff

for the quote about ‘the natural bond of human society’, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, vol. I.9, Marriage and Virginity, ed. and trans. David G. Hunter (New York: New City Press, 1999), 33.

Again: yes, but... mission?

Let me start this third blog in the series by saying that one of the things I have valued about Bishop Martin’s and Bishop Mike’s leadership in Eds & Ips is their commitment to mission. In this they have sought to lead by exhortation and example. I may have sometimes struggled with the form it has taken, but fundamentally I have enjoyed their partnership in the Gospel.

That commitment to mission was something that found expression again in their videos. Bishop Martin echoed a former ArchBishop, William Temple at one point: ‘We exist … to proclaim Christ to the people of England' (Temple’s famous dictum being: "The Church is the only organisation that does not exist for itself, but for those who live outside of it."). And he warned that when we forget this, we tend toward becoming a sect. Amen. Indeed, I had much more sympathy with this sort of statement, than Bishop Mike’s much more ambiguous observation that opinion within the Church of England reflects that of wider society. Perhaps it does in the House of Bishops, but as the votes in Synod showed, the House of Bishops is some way out of step with those in the pews. And our job is not to represent the people of this nation, still less to reflect their cultural and social attitudes. It is as Bishop Martin puts it, ‘to proclaim Christ…’.

All of this finds expression in ‘Growing in God’, which has a number of strategic aims, inlcuding Growing in Number, and Growing Younger. Which again, raises significant questions about how the Bishops can come to the conclusions they have about the Church’s blessing of those in same-sex marriage. I’ll come back to the actual arguments that have convinced them in a later blog, but for now let me just make the point that the Bishops Proposals will critically undermine the Church’s mission in this nation.

Contrary to much of what has been claimed in the LLF discussions in recent years, changing the Church’s teaching will not result in the Church becoming more acceptable to society, only less defensible. Received wisdom in outreach suggests that as we become more ‘relevant’, ‘accessible’, ‘recognisable’ to our culture, we minimise the obstacles that stand in the way of people coming to faith. Without defending traditionalism as an end in itself, let me just say that to believe this now is stretching credulity to breaking point.

The idea was formulated about 70 years ago (in the 1950s), when Donald McGavren wrote a book that started what has become known as the Church Growth Movement. We need to recognise that it has been massively influential, and that without most people ever having heard of him, McGavren has shaped a lot of our generation’s assumptions about Church.

His basic idea was that in order to help people become Christians, we had to understand as much as we can about the specific culture / sub-culture they are living in, and then that we needed to redesign Church in a way that is uniquely shaped by that culture, relevant to that culture, and accessible to that culture.

After a generation of road-testing this idea, it has been found wanting at a number of levels. Apart from the development of specific and niche culture ‘churches’ (a patently unBiblical vision for the Church family), it is simply a matter of emperical observation that adopting this strategy has not led to Church Growth in any meaningful sense. Now, to be clear, it is debatable that McGavren would have sanctioned the application of this model to doctrine. He seemed to be more concerned about making the way we worship ‘culturally relevant’. But that does not take away from the fact that this is the basic missional argument that has been deployed during LLF. If we remove (now doctrinal / ethical) obstacles to Church membership, we’ll win the nation back to Christ. Or at least a hearing for Him..?

The Church (the Anglican Church at any rate) in UK is locked into a spiral of decline. Throughout LLF, our progressive ‘prophets of doom’ have leveraged this observation to justify the removal of what they seem to believe constitutes an unecessary obstacle to people coming to faith in Christ.

Except that dismantling centuries of Biblical insight and wisdom about what constitutes Christian worship and discipleship turns out to be a wrong turn of catastrophic proportions. A raft of theological, Biblical and ethical questions aside, it simply fails on the basis of the very pragmatism that justifies it. In other words, it simply doesn’t work.

Is that just anecdotal, culutrally primitive, prejudice talking? Nope - that’s hard data and research talking.

When Church growth and decline is analysed in relation to their alignment to progressive ideology, of which same-sex marriage is a cornerstone, then without exception (read that again) Churches that adopt such progressive ideology (more specifically those which legitimse same sex marraige) are in decline.

To be fair, the Anglican Church was already in decline, but the idea that last week’s vote in Synod will do anything to slow that delince is to fly in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Before Synod’s vote, the Church of England was facing extinction by 2060. The evidence suggests that date has just been brought forward! Growing Churches (meaning here denominations / networks) have all held the line on Biblical sexual ethics.

Which brings me to my ‘yes, but…’ response to the Bishops’ video. Yes to mission. Yes to proclaiming Christ… Yes to ‘making disciples’. But… this is a decision that has chronically undermined precisely that commitment. To have made it in the name of mission is, I’m afraid, misguided at best.

the diagram above, and the research behind it can be found at: https://churchmodel.org.uk/2022/05/20/uk_church_decline_and_progressive_ideology/

if you want to read an artice explaining how Churches that attract young people hold to the historical teaching on marriage, you can do here: https://christianconcern.com/news/churches-with-the-largest-youth-groups-teach-biblical-sexuality/

Yes, but... unity?

Before I address those areas where I (though not just ‘I’, I hasten to add) have grave concerns about what the Bishops have said in their videos, and explore how it cannot justify the departure we have now taken from the historic and Biblical teaching and discipline of the Church, there are a couple of other things the Bishops say that I have some resonance with… some.

The first, as I intimated in my first post, is their oft repeated commitment to unity. For this we are grateful, and it is one of the places where I felt both the strongest resonance, but also the some of the strongest uncertainty about what is actually being said. That uncertainty has only increased in the light of Synod’s debate and vote. Bishop Martin speaks of the need to ‘attend to and nurture the bonds of affection’, and Bishop Mike speaks of the commitment of the Diocese to continue to appoint, encourage and support across the spectrum of views on LLF, and specifcally on this issue of the blessings of those in same sex marriages. I was struck by the Bishops’ exploring their commitment to unity not as an end in itself, but in relation to Christ.

This is a refreshing perspective and one I warmed to in the videos. It is, as the Bishops say, costly, but it is something we are to prioritise, and make every effort to keep (Eph.4:1-6). So where do my concerns lie?

The first is the question of what it means to build our unity in relation to Christ, when our visions of Christ are dissonant. That seems an impossibly brittle foundation. At root is the question of whether we can disentangle the Person of Jesus from His teaching. And by ‘His teaching’ we don’t limit ourselves to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, but also His teaching by His Spirit through the Apostles, and prior to that, through the Law, the Writings and the Prophets. Bishop Mike links our unity to our pointing to who Christ is… but that seems to be precisely the point at issue. Who do we believe Christ to be, and what do we believe He is calling us to be? Who is the Christ to whom we are pointing?

The second is the observation that throughout the Bible, the unity of the Church is threatened by heterodox teaching, and un-Apostolic views of Jesus, and of disicpleship. Those entrusted with leadership in our Church are exhorted to ‘hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that they can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it’ (Titus 1:9). This is captured by the Church of England’s commission to her Bishops (captured in Canon C18, Every bishop is the chief pastor of all that are within their diocese … it appertains to their office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions). This conformity to the teaching of the Church is conformity to our shared vision of Christ, His teaching and what it means to follow Him. In spite of the oft-repeated claim that the 39 Articles are not a Basis of faith, it is clear that the BCP understands them to be exactly that. They are ‘Articles … for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true religion’.

And my third concern is that in spite of the rhetoric of unity, the House of Bishops have in fact - in their Proposals - introduced colossal disunity to both the Church of England, and the Global Anglican Communion. Whilst I take Bishop Martin’s point that we may have different ideas of what we are aspiring to with regard to unity, and with whom, there are three fractures that have opened in this last week, that are unlikely to ever be healed.

Within the Church of England there is a disunity of doctrine, practise and liturgy that strikes at some of the most foundational beliefs about what it means to be Christian. We are facing an almost unprecedented prospect of division within our denomination. As of this week’s vote in General Synod, we can no longer speak of a united Church. The Church of England Evangelical Council (which includes Bishops and Principals of Theological Colleges) is amongst those within the Church of England immediately calling for visible differentiation, and for ‘Principled Protest’. The House of Bishops has preciptated a sequence of events that could conceivably lead to the break-up of the historic Church. That isn’t fear-mongering, it is simply a statement of fact. Whether those voting in Synod yesterday appreciated the significance of their actions or intended this as a consequnce is quite beside the point. And all talk of ‘walking together’ sounds hollow and disingenuous after what we witnessed at Synod.

Within the Global Anglican Communion (not even taking into account GAFCON), there has already been a call for the Church of England to repent, or face ‘impaired communion’. The Archbishop of Alexandria was at Synod, and warned those voting of these consequences. The Global South Primates (representing 75%+) of the Global Anglican Church have already issued a statement questioning whether ArchBishop Welby is ‘fit to lead’ the Global Anglican Communion. They continue that in view of this week’s General Synod, they will be

‘taking decisive steps towards re-setting the Anglican Communion (as outlined in our ‘Communique’ following the 2022 Lambeth Conference). Orthodox Provinces in GSFA are not leaving the Anglican Communion, but with great sadness must recognise that the Church of England has now joined those Provinces with which communion is impaired. The historical Church which spawned the global Communion, and which for centuries was accorded ‘first among equals’ status, has now triggered a widespread loss of confidence in her leadership of the Communion’.

And ecumenically… quite apart form the damage this has done ‘on the ground’, other denominations and Church networks are already raising deep concerns at Synod’s decisions. A Coptic Orthodox Bishop - an invited guest at Synod, warned this decision would be ‘contrary to the received tradition of the Christian world’, and would result in the distancing of other denominations such as his own. Abroad, there will be violent repercussions for the persecuted Church elsewhere in the world - again, a fact recognised (even articulated by the ArchBishop of Canterbury himself) but ignored by Synod. In part there is grief and despair at the significance of the country’s established Church stepping away from its own teaching, but also concern that the Synod’s decision will be used to undermine Christians, Churches and Christian Organisations, at home and abroad, that remain committed to the historic and Biblical position. Will the Bishops - as an expression of their commitment to unity within the Church of England - publicly defend and protect those who hold to the historic and Biblical teaching on these issues? Will they defend Christians who are now undermined in their workplaces? Will they defend parents of children in Church of England Schools who challenge those schools for teaching that which is contrary to Scriptural teaching? Recent history would suggest not - and that was before Synod’s vote. What then is this unity?

But I fear most immediately for the division and disunity that the Bishop’s Proposals will cause in the local congregations that remain the foundational building blocks of the Church of England. As each Minister & PCC now have to face the question of whether to use these Prayers of Love and Faith, how many congregations will be left diminished and divided. I confess a certain anxiety particularly over evangelical congregations. It has to be said that as evangelicals, we tend not good at unity. In part because we tend to be Evangelicals first and Anglicans second. Our commitment to Scripture and Christ trumps our commitment to the Church of England, although until this week the two were not necessarily in tension. The technical sophistry of Synod will count for little amongst those who long more than anything for their pastors to be faithful to Scripture. The legal casuistry will only serve to further undermine their confidence. And the oft-repeated statements from many that there is still a way to go on this journey gives little reason to stay. The situation we find ourselves in is not good for Evangelicals, nor for Anglicans. Many of us will stay… although for many it will depend on the reality of how this all plays out in the weeks and months ahead. But many will go. And in spite of the obvious contempt for traditionalists shown in Synod, that will be a tragedy for the Church of England.

So, yes, but… Yes, let’s pursue unity. But this is not it.

Where I agree with our Bishops

I’ve been asked a number of times over the last couple of days what I think of the v-logs released by our Bishops, in which they seek to explain how they have arrived at their conclusion that the Church should change its teaching, so that the Church of England would extend Holy Matrimony to same-sex couples.

If you haven’t seen them, they can be found here, https://www.cofesuffolk.org/deepening-faith/everyday-faith/living-in-love-and-faith/living-in-love-and-faith.php

I’ve watched the videos a number of times now, and will try and respond to them, as well as to the wider situation developing at Synod, over the next few days.

So, first: where do I agree with Bishops Martin and Mike…

The main area where I found myself in sympathy is with regard to their critical reflections on the uncritical (evangelical?) faith of their younger days! On this we share common ground. I totally agree with +Martin that Scripture Union notes, and the like, are not a good way to read the Bible, and I agree with +Mike that a faith that is not challenged, or interrogated is hopelessly vulnerable. I found myself saddened by both their stories as they recounted the destabilising experience they had at University, and how their youthful, but un-critical faith left them unprepared for the challenges of rigorous theological, philosophical and hermeneutical challenges they were exposed to in later life.

This seems to me an honest and important point to highlight, and we should be grateful to our Bishops for their transparency here. It underlines the urgency and importance of ensuring that those in our Churches, and those who are growing up through our Churches are invested with a rich, informed, well-resourced, and intellectually rigorous faith, that is able to engage well with the questions that are asked of it. We will have moments when our faith is challenged, but we can be much better equipped to navigate those moments. We, and our children and young people, are facing increasingly challenging questions as Christians, and we have a responsiblity to make sure that we and they are adequately prepared. Our Bishops have laid down a mandate for teaching and discipling at a much greater depth than we are used to!

The second major area of agreement is the Bishops’ own assessment of their videos. Towards the end of the last video, we are reminded that their v-logs haven’t been intended as arguments, deployed to change anyone’s mind. They are far more autobiographical, simply reflecting on how they have arrived at the position they now share. Indeed. They are however articulating at least some the reasons that they have personally found persuasive. I’ll look at those arguments and explain why I, and many, many others both inside and outside the Church, are less persuaded.

Yet a compelling argument for introducing change in any form to the Church’s teaching and discipline on marriage and sexuality (and yes, they do signify a change in spite of all rhetoric to the contrary), is really what we need. One of the common observations raised about the whole LLF process is that no such argument was forthcoming. I’ll try and show in a later post that there remains an apparent lack of any convincing theological, pastoral, missional or canonical justification for this extraordinary development … though this does perhaps explain why the changes are being forced through with seeming disregard for process, and for the concerns of those on Synod who have deep misgivings about the course that being set for the Church.

Unless it were being live streamed, it is unlikely that anyone would believe the behaviour of some of the Bishops. There is widespread condemnation of what is being described variously as disingenuous (see here: https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/who-do-you-think-you-are-kidding evasive and condescending (see here: https://www.christiantoday.com/article/this.week.at.general.synod/139809.htm and arrogant sophistry (see here: https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/2023/02/07/on-not-blaming-god/ There is a great deal of concern that the House of Bishops are simply abusing their power. This was captured in the debate itself when Stephen Hofmeyr made a point of order: the fact that we were, on every amendment, taking a vote by houses meant that the bishops could veto everything, and indeed were doing precisely that, somewhat undermining their apparent commitment to listen to Synod. The point of order was met with loud and prolonged applause, signalling widespread discontent...

I strongly recommend that you watch some of the interactions in Synod and decide for yourself (see here: https://www.facebook.com/CCFON/videos/514972150783085/ . I was particularly struck by Rebecca Hunt’s being so flabbergasted by one answer that she asked for it to be put in writing. It risks a staggering loss of trust in the House of Bishops and in the integrity of the processes of governance and accountability within the institution of the Church of England. Their blatent disregard for the Pastoral Principles the Bishops themselves have advocated throughout the LLF process, and that subsequent loss of trust, will remain an issue irrespective of the outcomes of General Synod. This is particularly unfortunate, because trust is precisely what is needed if we are going to walk together through these tumultuous times.

Whilst I agree with the priority of a Christ-centred unity to which our own Bishops return again and again in their videos, it is becoming increasingly clear that some of the Bishops speaking at General Synod are critically undermining that unity. Whilst we are so grateful that our own Bishops are speaking words of grace, and have publicly committed themselves to continuing to support, encourage, resource and appoint across the spectrum of views, they risk being drowned out by their colleagues.

8 reasons the Bishop's proposals won't work

Rev Sean Doherty is principal of Trinity College Bristol where he teaches Christian ethics. He is one of the founders of Living Out and a member of the General Synod of the Church of England. He is a same-sex attracted Christian who has been part of the Living in Love and Faith process since the beginning. He believes the CofE needs to take more time for proper discernment over the Church’s position on gay marriage.

I have been fully involved with the Church of England’s Living in Love and Faith process since it began. As an Anglican ethicist, I was invited to be a member of the theology and ethics working group, one of several groups set up to resource and inform the project. After the LLF resources were produced, I became a member of the Bristol diocese LLF reference group, and led an LLF course at Trinity College Bristol, where I am the principal.

I have participated in good faith in the process, trusting that this was an opportunity for people across the Church to work together to try to find a way forward that was “founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology and the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it”, as the Archbishop of Canterbury put it when launching the project in 2017.

But this is not just an academic matter for me. I also write as one of the minority of LGBT people who believe that the current teaching of the Church is true and good for us and should not change.

Following the LLF process, the bishops of the Church of England have now published proposals for prayers for couples in committed relationships, including same-sex couples. The Church of England’s General Synod will soon be voting on whether or not to welcome the bishops’ proposals.

As a member of that Synod, I am not able to welcome them as they currently stand, and I want to share my concerns about the proposals. I do this in a spirit of genuine dialogue. There may be things I have misunderstood or overlooked, and I hope I can be corrected where I am wrong.

My concerns are as follows:

1. The bishops give no reasoned theological or biblical basis for their proposals

Given the enormous amount of theological and biblical study that has gone into the LLF process, I am bewildered at the lack of engagement with this in the bishops’ proposals. I don’t doubt that, as individuals, they have studied and thought things through. But they do not explain how and why their proposals make theological sense – and they can’t expect people to go along with them unless they do. That would amount simply to an act of power, whereas the power of bishops properly derives from their authority as teachers of the Christian faith.

We should give the bishops some benefit of the doubt here. Their first residential opportunity for discussing LLF was cancelled due to the death of the late Queen. If they had had more time, perhaps they could have worked through a theological basis for their proposals together. But it is surprising that they did not take more time to develop this.

The closest I can see to a rationale given is that a) the bishops don’t agree among themselves and b) that society now has a very different understanding of sex and relationships to the Church.

Both are questionable grounds for theological change and innovation. If we are to support the bishop’s proposals, we need a coherent theological account of how and why these prayers emerge from what we believe, as Christians, about human relationships. If there is not sufficient agreement to articulate such an account, that is something the bishops need to address before they make proposals.

2. A discernment has not taken place – only a compromise

Several times in the document, the bishops set out different possible perspectives on issues which are absolutely fundamental to this matter, such as the doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics.

Simply to state that there is a difference of opinion is not an act of discernment. Discernment involves waiting patiently on the Holy Spirit until the Spirit reveals a way forward together. A compromise leaves us no further forward as a Church than we were before.

A discernment does not necessarily mean unanimity. A parallel would be the question of the ordination of women as priests and bishops (which I fully support). On that matter, the CofE has reached a clear decision. Those who are ordained must recognise and respect this, even if they personally disagree with it.

3. The absence of a theological, ethical basis leads to significant hostages to fortune

We are told that the bishops “joyfully affirm, and want to acknowledge in church, stable, committed relationships between two people” (GS2289 p1) and “celebrate in God’s presence the commitment two people have made to each other is an occasion for rejoicing” (Prayers, p2).

Does this mean stable, committed relationships between any two people should be affirmed and celebrated in church? Of course the bishops cannot seriously mean this. Two people in an adulterous relationship might exhibit stability and commitment to one another. But the bishops have articulated no principle by which legitimate and illegitimate stable, committed relationships can be distinguished.

4. The distinction between civil marriage and Holy Matrimony is theologically wrong

The bishops’ proposals rely on a distinction between same-sex civil marriages, and the Church’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony. This distinction has to be made in order to justify the bishops’ claim that you can be in a same-sex marriage without “challenging or rejecting the Church’s doctrine of marriage” (Response, p7). But, as the CofE marriage service puts it: “Marriage is a gift of God in creation”.

Do bishops think that opposite-sex couples in civil marriages are not really married? Of course not. Civil marriages are real marriages. You don’t need to be married in church to be married in God’s sight.

Whether a legal distinction between civil marriage and Holy Matrimony is sustainable, the CofE doesn’t currently accept such a distinction. Not so long ago, the House of Bishops argued that clergy cannot enter same-sex marriages because, “getting married to someone of the same sex would, however, clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England”. Were they wrong then, or now?

5. These proposals will tear the Anglican Communion apart

The CofE has a unique role in the Anglican Communion, both in terms of historical role and leadership under the Archbishop of Canterbury. These developments are likely to be unacceptable to many Anglican churches around the world, which may withdraw from the Communion or at least break fellowship with the CofE.

6. It undermines the Church’s teaching about sex

The proposed prayers make a careful distinction between blessing the couple, and blessing their relationship (which the bishops do not propose to do). They acknowledge that the Church cannot bless relationships which are at variance with its teaching. However, this clever distinction is unlikely to be noticed much in practice.

While the bishops may claim proposals are technically consistent with the doctrine of the Church, they are, at the very least, indicative of a departure. They will give a false impression of what the Church teaches and believes about marriage and sex. For example, one of the prayers asks God to “keep them faithful to the commitment they have made to one another”. For most couples, that commitment will assume and include a commitment to sexual intimacy - which the Church actually teaches belongs only in opposite-sex marriage.

7. The proposals will lead to pastoral and evangelistic tensions

Same-sex couples may approach their local church for these prayers, only to be told that their clergy person is not willing to offer them. How will those couples feel? In some congregations, clergy will want to offer the prayers while people in their congregations may object. Elsewhere, some congregation members will want the prayers while clergy will not feel able to offer them. This leads to my final concern.

8. There is no provision for those who cannot go along with the proposals

The bishops’ document speaks of respecting the consciences of those who are not willing to use the proposed prayers, but this promise has no power to bind other bishops in the future, and there is no mention of any mechanism for protecting such respect. I have already had multiple conversations with ordinands and clergy (of different underlying convictions on sexuality) who are concerned about being asked in future job interviews whether they will offer the prayers, and how that will be interpreted.

As the meeting of General Synod approaches I will be praying for a gracious debate, which treats LGBT people with the respect that we deserve. But I will also be praying that the bishops reconsider their approach and take more time to pray and listen to God together, until they can discern a way forward which is truly “founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology and the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it.”

For I do not believe that these proposals yet are.

Sean Doherty

taken from https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/8-reasons-why-the-cofes-same-sex-proposals-wont-work/14820.article / accessed 010223

It's a brave new world...

Here is a video made by a barrister (so it gets a bit technical in places, though he then ‘translates’ the legal-speak for you) reflecting on the recent arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, for ‘maybe’ silently praying in a new PSPO outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. The story can be read in full here:

https://catholicherald.co.uk/video-the-moment-when-catholic-woman-praying-silently-is-arrested-by-three-police-officers/

or here:

https://news.yahoo.com/british-woman-arrested-praying-silently-200714572.html

or here:

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/watch-outrage-as-woman-praying-silently-is-arrested-in-uk-street-taken-away-by-police-for-a-thoughtcrime/411506

Unfortunately, I can’t find any coverage of the story on the BBC website.

As ever, the situation is complex, but as you will hear in the video below, there are significant questions for us to be aware of…

Can we Remain Silent?

You may remember that this time last year we were bringing our ‘Living in Love and Faith’ term to a close. We had spent almost three months preaching through the Bible’s vision for marriage and sexuality. We ran a True Freedom Trust morning, and studied and prayed together in our homegroups. We worked together on the Living in Love and Faith course itself. As the period of consultation within the Church of England draws to a close, we are already seeing Bishops advocate for change in the Church’s teaching and pastoral on these matters.

Earlier this month, the Bishop of Oxford has published an essay in which he adds his voice to those calling for revision. You’ll have to buy the essay if you want to read it (which you can do here: https://www.oxford.anglican.org/ although there are a nmber of reviews online). You could (should!) also read Vaughn Roberts’ response (for free: https://www.oxforddef.co.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=318841).

In the meantime, as we draw closer to Synod and the House of Bishops making recommendations, and decisions, I’ll be posting a number of Church of England Evaneglical Council contributions to the debate. It is unlikely that we at MIE will remain unaffected by this discussion in the national Church. At personal levels as well as at the level of our life together as a Church, we will likely find the months ahead painful and difficult to navigate. Please commit to praying for us as a Church, and particularly for our PCC as we chart our course in 2023.

19 Questions to ask before giving...

Nineteen Questions to Ask Before You Give to Any Organization (Abbreviated Version)

By Randy Alcorn

Giving is a great privilege, but also a great responsibility—and sometimes a confusing one. While the biggest hurdle is to gain a vision for giving, and to overcome our reluctance to give, once we’ve bought into God’s call to eternal investment, once we’ve determined to plunge into giving then we must ask, where and to whom and in what way and for how long should we give?

1. Are there things about this ministry that make it uniquely worth investing in instead of a thousand other good causes?

God does not call us to support every ministry, and not even every worthy ministry, and not even every extremely worthy ministry. For the glory of God, we must say “no” to many need-meeting opportunities, even most of them, the vast majority of them, in order that we may say a strong “yes” to those that God has uniquely called us to support. I can almost guarantee you that God is calling all of us to give more than we’re presently giving, but to give to less than 1% of all the ministries we could give to.

Feel guilty if you don’t give, and if you don’t give very generously. But don’t feel guilty because you don’t give to every good cause. You cannot and you should not give to every good cause.

2. Before giving elsewhere, have I fulfilled my primary giving responsibility to my local church?

Missions, evangelistic crusades, hunger relief organizations, Christian schools, and campus outreaches are all “parachurch” ministries. Their function is to minister alongside of or beyond the scope of local churches.

Giving should be done first to the local church because it is the giver’s primary spiritual community. Those who sit under the teaching and leadership of godly servants should do their part by helping support them. In Galatians 6:6 Paul says, “Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.”

Provided the church teaches the Bible and exalts the Lord Jesus—and if it doesn’t we need to be part of a church that does—we have to learn to trust and submit, and recognize our giving is to the Lord, and when it comes to the church we can voice our opinions, but we can’t and shouldn’t seek to control where everything goes. In the early church believers laid their money at the feet of the apostles so it could be distributed as there was need.

Personally, my wife and I give a minimum of 10% to our local church, and with special offerings to the church, it comes out to more. Only after that do we look beyond to the wide array of international opportunities for kingdom investments. Giving need not end in the local church, but it should begin there.

3. Have I not only studied the literature from this ministry, but talked with others who know it close up but have no vested interests in it?

In most churches, people sometimes see their own pastors in real life situations, and have some feel for their character and qualifications. But what they know about a mission organization is primarily what they’re told through the mail or on radio or television. Before giving to ministries that we aren’t intimately familiar with, we should do our homework.

Proverbs 27:2 says, “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips.” Every time we read a fundraising letter or any other publication of a ministry—and I do recommend reading them—we have to keep in mind that these words are coming from their mouths, their lips, not from an objective third party.

Most ministry groups do not excel at negative self-disclosure. Ask them what their weaknesses are. If they can’t answer, it shows a serious lack of self-evaluation and a lack of initiative for improvement. This homework can include consulting with others who may know first-hand what the ministry is really like. Ask your pastor what he knows about this organization and its leaders. Missionaries are often good resources. Larger churches, like mine, may have a missions pastor who travels extensively and keeps abreast of which organizations are doing what, and how well. Missions professors at Bible colleges and seminaries are often familiar with foreign ministries.

4. Have I considered a ministry or vision trip to see and participate in what this ministry is actually doing on the field?

There’s just nothing like seeing missions work first-hand. I will never forget, for instance, watching people riveted to the Jesus Film on back streets and abandoned lots in some countries, and in private homes with the curtains drawn in others. I saw with my own eyes how God was using this wonderful instrument to win people to Christ and plant churches.

As great as vision trips are, however, we have to realize they too have limits. For one thing, you may have been part of a very good work, but there may be a better one you haven’t seen first hand. Plus, remember you’re not seeing everything. You may be seeing an organization’s best work, with their best face put on it in light of your visit.

Of course, you don’t need to take a trip to see every ministry you support. But maybe you can talk to someone you trust who’s made such a trip.

5. Does the ministry’s staff demonstrate a servant-hearted concern for those to whom they minister?

Does the literature and day to day operation reflect a ministry that is not just project-centered, but people-centered? Do these people demonstrate a spirit of servanthood and humility? Is the organization more concerned about its image, or what it actually does for others? Is it better at talking about ministry, or actually doing the ministry?

6. Do the organization’s workers demonstrate a sense of unity, camaraderie, and mutual respect?

Whether in a home office or on the field, how well do staff members get along with each other? Is there a family atmosphere? Are they quick to encourage each other? Do they appear to be a team, or is there a feeling of distance or competition among them? Do you hear laughter in the halls and lunch table, or do you sense a climate of tension or unrest? Here’s a question to ask employees—for what reasons have people left this organization in the last year?

7. Have I talked directly with people at the “lower levels” of this ministry, not just executives and PR people?

Examining an organization’s literature or listening to its broadcasts is necessary, but not sufficient. The ministry will rarely report failures, infighting, immorality, or misappropriation of funds. While no organization is perfect, we are responsible to take reasonable steps to insure we are supporting ministries which live by God’s principles.

Does the ministry have a web site? Examine it. See if you can pick up not only the beliefs and projects, but the attitude and spirit behind the ministry.

If you give regularly or substantially to a ministry, visit its nearest office, without making an appointment. You can learn a great deal by personally interacting with the ministry’s staff, or with the faculty and students of a Christian school.

8. Is this ministry biblically sound and Christ-centered?

Take a good look at a ministry’s statement of faith. Is it true to the Scriptures? If the answer is no, go no farther. If it’s a Christian school, and there’s a need for a sociology teacher, will it hire an academically qualified but spiritually unqualified professor just to maintain accreditation? An organization can be doctrinally sound but spiritually dead. Is there evidence of a vital relationship with Christ? What is the spiritual pulse of faculty and students? If it isn’t what it should be, are you perpetuating the spiritual problem by giving your money? Or are there other schools and other ministries more worthy of your support?

Is there a prayerful dependence on God? Has the ministry maintained its spiritual goals? If it is a relief organization, is there a clear understanding of the full human dilemma? Does it take into account the sin problem as well as poverty and hunger?

Obtain current information—the fact that this was a good school or ministry thirty years ago isn’t relevant. The funds you give will not go to the work of thirty years ago, they will go to what is happening now. Make sure this ministry is on the right track today.

9. What kind of character, integrity, purity and humility is demonstrated by the ministry leaders?

No ministry will rise above the spiritual level of those who lead it. The Christian leader is to be above reproach, self-controlled and in right relationship to his family. He is not to be a lover of money, quarrelsome, conceited, or one who will bend the truth for financial gain (1 Tim. 3:1-10).

The organization should simply be a tool at God’s disposal, for him to use as—and as long as—he chooses (2 Tim. 2:21). Is this a God-centered rather than man-centered operation?

Are those who should be humble servants made to look like heroes or celebrities? If someone other than God is getting the glory, do your giving elsewhere.

10. What kind of accountability structures does the organization have?

Is it part of an external accountability affiliation such as the Evangelical Counsel for Financial Accountability? (However, some good organizations do not belong to these groups, and some that do may not be living up to the affiliation’s standards.)

External affiliations are no substitute for internal checks and balances. “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). Is the board comprised of a good cross section of spiritually qualified people? Will they stand up to key leaders in the organization, and challenge them on the wisdom or rightness of certain actions or policies?

How open are the decision-makers to your input as an informed donor? Be careful—don’t try to control what isn’t yours to control. But do take the responsibility to be a wise steward. 

11. If this is a secular or semi-Christian organization rather than a distinctively Christian one, what are the compelling reasons for giving to it?

Secular organizations such as the United Way support many good things, along with some bad, including Planned Parenthood and its abortion agenda. But even when they do good, there is a basic philosophical difference. They focus on the short term needs of people, without a view to their eternal welfare.

If the only way to help people was to give to a nonchristian organization, of course I’d give to it. But it isn’t. Let’s do the good works in the name of Christ, for his glory.

12. How clear are this organization’s goals and objectives, strategies and tactics, and how effective are they in carrying them out?

Is effectiveness judged by activity or by results, or both? How is it really measured? How can you interpret the numbers they list in mailings and reports?

For example, If 100 tons of food were delivered, how much got directly into the hands of hungry people and how much was confiscated by government officials or stolen and sold on the black market? Is there another organization that gets more food to people in need more effectively and better utilizes Christian churches to do it? Was gospel literature distributed with the food? If not, why not? Was there a good reason (maybe there was) or was this a missed opportunity reflecting the mission’s disinterest in evangelism?

If 10,000 people have come to Christ, how many were baptized and are now part of Bible-teaching churches? Does this organization follow up and evaluate the effectiveness of past projects and take this into consideration in future ones?

13. Is this organization teachable and open to improvement to become more strategic in their efforts?

Do they look for new ways to convey the timeless message, or do they put themselves above evaluation by uncritically “doing the Lord’s work” the same way they always have?

Character and attitude are the most important, but they’re not enough. You can be very godly and very sincere, but also do a very poor job in effectively meeting needs. Are leaders and missionaries participating in forums and conferences that put them on the forward edge of methodologies?

14. Am I certain I’ve gotten an objective view of this ministry, or have they given me the red carpet treatment so I’ve seen the positives without the negatives?

Do they present their best side to those who are potential supporters, while showing their worst side to their own workers and/or those they are supposed to be reaching? They may give you the red carpet treatment if they recognize you as a big donor or as big donor potential, but servantheartedness is best demonstrated in how they treat those who cannot help them and who they feel no compulsion to impress.

Don’t expect to be coddled, and don’t give to a ministry because they’ve stroked you and romanced you, but because they’re bringing glory to God by doing a faithful kingdom work. When it comes to investing in eternity, we need to get over ourselves—it’s not about you and me, the donors, it’s about the glory of God.

15. What view of God and people is demonstrated in this organization’s fundraising techniques?

I heard a radio preacher beg listeners, “Please be sensitive to God—send us your contribution.”

Though it’s no doubt sincere in many cases, the promise of prayer for the giver’s needs and loved ones can be manipulative fundraising. “You pay, and we’ll pray.”

Another common tactic is the manufactured crisis—”We must receive $300,000 by the end of the month or we’ll have to close our doors.” Yet $100,000 comes in and the doors stay open. So, how is this different than lying?

Many ministries reflect prosperity theology or health and wealth gospel. I deal with that in my book Money, Possessions and Eternity.

Over the years, I’ve received countless fundraising appeals from different ministries, and most of them are appropriate, but some of them have increasingly gotten worse and worse. Some organizations don’t put their name on the return address, or put an assumed name, knowing the recipient might not open it if he knew what it really was. In other words, the goal of the mailing is out and out deception—what does that say about a ministry? This kind of fundraising is immoral—it’s scandalous and Christians should not tolerate it.

Some organizations offer names on bricks and plaques to commemorate and publicize donor giving. When the organization puts this forth as a motive for giving, they violate Matthew 6 which says our giving is to be done quietly and discreetly, and those who give to be recognized have their reward, man’s approval, but forfeit reward from God. Any ministry that appeals to my worst motives and results in my loss of reward is not an organization I want to support.

Pioneer missionary to China Hudson Taylor said, “God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s supply.” Even the best ministries will sometimes be running tight financially. But if a work constantly lacks money, if it’s always begging for donations, does this suggest something may be fundamentally wrong? Perhaps that it’s either not God’s work or it’s not being done in God’s way.

16. How much money does the organization spend on overhead expenses and fundraising, and how much in actual ministry to people?

Every organization has legitimate overhead and “home office” expenses. These are not nonessentials. But as important as support personnel are, when you give to an organization, it’s also fair to ask how much is actually getting to the ministry you intended to support. (I hesitate to state a specific percentage to look for, because each ministry is unique, and many define “overhead” in different ways.)

What percentage of funds goes to raising more funds? What portion of every dollar sent in goes not to the work itself, but to raise more dollars?

If you can visit a ministry office, look at the furnishings. They may be attractive without being expensive and ostentatious. What about the lifestyles of the ministry staff? Does the organization disclose financial information that includes staff salaries? If not, why not?

If it seems judgmental or inappropriate to ask such questions, remember that you are God’s money manager looking to invest his assets.

17. Does this ministry show a clear understanding of cross-cultural ministry factors and local conditions and how the flow of money may affect them?

Some organizations are masters at the difficult task of cross-cultural ministry. Others are sincere but culturally ignorant or insensitive. They may have poor contacts or distribution methods in foreign countries. They sometimes pursue short-term solutions that contribute to long-term problems.

A sensitive relief and development organization with a long-term perspective—and there are some excellent ones—will work toward encouraging rather than discouraging local workers and the local economy, with a goal not only of immediate famine relief, but ongoing famine prevention.

Warning—ask legitimate questions, but do not use examples of misappropriated or unwise funding as an excuse not to give to critical needs. The solution is never to give less, it is to give more, but to give it selectively to the ministries that are doing the best job to the glory of God.

18. Does this organization speak well of others and cooperate with them?

Does this ministry have a cooperative rather than competitive relationship with other ministries? Does it avoid duplication of efforts? Or does it reinvent the wheel with no regard for what others in different ministries and denominations have learned and accomplished? Do local churches and nationals speak highly of this ministry? If so, good. If not, why not?

Check the ministry’s newsletter and see if there are references to cooperation with other groups and churches. Call and ask what joint projects they are involved with. A self-sufficient ministry hesitant to share success with others is myopic and counterproductive. Our giving should go to ministries committed to partnerships, to joining their brethren in building God’s kingdom, not their own.

19. Is this ministry pervaded by a distinctly eternal perspective on life, ministry and resources?

Some organizations have one year, five year and ten year goals, but fail to operate with an eternal perspective. True long-term accomplishments are not those that will last ten years or even a hundred. They should last a billion years and beyond. They should make a difference for eternity.

Immediately on leaving this world all who know Christ will gain the right perspective on ministry. The good news is we don’t have to wait until then. We can and should live now—and invest in eternity now—with the perspective that will be ours one minute after we die.

Randy Alcorn (@randyalcorn) is the author of fifty-some books and the founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries. 

Did the 15th Lambeth Conference signal the end of the Anglican Communion?

I’ve been asked quite a few times recently what I think of the recent Lambeth Conference.  Well, here is more of an answer that might be anticipated.  I have to be a bit careful, because I wasn’t there…  But I guess the main issue for many (in spite of what looked like a lot of effort to make it not the main issue!) was always going to be the question of whether the Conference would re-affirm the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. Certainly many of the Bishops and Archbishops themselves saw this as the main issue, as we’ll see below.

And on this, it was apparent that the Archbishop of Canterbury wasn’t going to please everyone.  He couldn’t.  There are two incompatible theologies at work.  Perhaps that much at least has come into renewed focus.  There is no middle ground, though the Archbishop tried hard to find it.  I was reminded a little of the old riddle about how may angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Welby himself acknowledged the near impossibility of reaching a consensus…  I think the inclusion of ‘near’ there was a bit optimistic!

But our Bishops and Primates had a chance to do what the Church should do.  They had a chance to declare what God has revealed in His Word to the world.  They had a chance to proclaim Good News.  They had a chance to renew the Church, and to reform the Church that is reformed and which must always be reforming. And they were called to do it in no uncertain terms.  And they came so close.

The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches made it easy, by producing their own clarion statement and offering it for the Bishops to sign and for the Conference to affirm.  The Archbishop of Canterbury chose to stay closer to the fence.  In an oddly worded phrase he said: ‘It is the case that the whole of Lambeth 1.10 1998 still exists. This Call does not in any way question the validity of that resolution’.  He went on, ‘For the large majority of the Anglican Communion the traditional understanding of marriage is something that is understood, accepted and without question.  For them, to question this teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries would make the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack.’

There has already been much discussion about what he may or may not be saying here.  He has been criticised for both saying too much and too little.   But it is clear that he stops short of proclaiming the teaching of Scripture as authoritative and binding on the Church.  And if you sense a touch of cultural relativism at play, you could be right.  The Archbishop went on to affirm, possibly with rather more clarity, that some Churches had moved away from Anglicanism’s historic teaching, and that they would not be disciplined for that.  At least, he insisted that he does not have, and he does not seek ‘the authority to discipline or exclude a church’ if they conduct or bless same-sex marriages.  Institutionally, this might be the case, but that is not to say there is nothing that Canterbury could do to lead the Church in ways shaped by a faithfulness to Scripture.  It is simply disingenuous to deny that he does have an authority which could be brought to bear.  Instead, he invites us to simply accept the reality on the ground as it is, rather than to strive for what it should be.  It is not an invitation that is being taken up by all Primates and Bishops.  The leadership of GSFA recognises the responsibility it has: “We must record our grief that significant numbers of our brothers and sisters have embraced teaching which does not accord with ‘the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ (Eph. 2:20) and which is contrary to our calling … We find that if there is no authentic repentance by the revisionist provinces, then we will sadly accept a state of 'impaired communion' with them."   In spite of his protestation to the contrary, the Archbishop does seem to have uncoupled unity from truth, and in doing so, risks dismantling the very unity he aspires to protect.  Unity is based on truth, and is already lost when truth is lost.  That fracturing of unity was all too evident at Lambeth 22, where a number of Bishops and Archbishops refused to receive communion.

‘For such churches’ (as have denied Scripture’s teaching) Welby claims, ‘not to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence’.  So far, this includes 5 out of 42 provinces (and 2 others who have taken a rather more ambiguous position, but all in, constituting somewhat less than 10% of the Anglican Communion).  Welby’s suggestion is that we learn to live with the diversity of opinion on what constitutes the Gospel, and discipleship.  It might prove a naïve hope rather than a realistic strategy for future.  After all, a number of African Primates and Bishops flatly refused Welby’s invitation to the conference, and others from the Global South were clear that ‘Our willingness as orthodox Bishops to attend this Conference does not mean that we have agreed to ‘walk together’ with the revisionist Primates and Bishops in the Anglican Communion … Failing to correct false teaching is to fail to act in love. Hence, orthodox Bishops are duty-bound to God not to ‘live and let live’ under the guise of simply walking together in continuing dialogue with those who have departed from the way (or path) of truth … The only basis for our walking together is to submit ourselves again to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture in loyalty to the Anglican tradition and its formularies’.  The GSFA came with the stated intent of calling the whole Communion back to biblical faithfulness, and in so doing they invited the Conference to affirm that ‘renewed steps be taken to ensure that all Provinces abide by this doctrine in their faith, order & practice’.

The legacy of Lambeth 22 is one of ambiguity and mild confusion at best, and fear for the future of the Communion at worst.  At one level, Archbishop Justin seems to have powerfully described, with great empathy, the situation as it is.  Beyond that there is little that is certain, with Bishops on both sides of the debate feeling validated, claiming the Archbishop of Canterbury as their ally, and commentators on both sides lamenting his perceived lack of support.  He seems to be suggesting that each Province should make its own decision based on what prevents the Church from becoming ‘a victim of derision, contempt and even attack’.  There are significant questions about this as a way of discerning what the Church should believe and teach!  In Scripture, we are called to be faithful, especially when such faithfulness results in persecution. 

Which leaves to my mind three significant questions:

The first is the vision of theology that is now at work within the structures of the Church of England.  many are increasingly fearful that our denomination is fast moving away from even a pretence of rooting the teaching of the Church of England in her historic formularies.  There is rather, a profound and pragmatic relativism shaping our vision of what it means to be the people of God.  What we teach is whatever is best for us in our local context. Is it all equally valid?  This doesn’t sit well with Scripture, or even the Archbishop’s own challenge that our theology should not be shaped by our cultural context, especially when that culture ‘seeks to construct itself without God’.  But he is at least consistent with his stated desire to rpeserve institutional unity.  He acknowledges both the reality of ‘deep disagreement’, and that it sometimes takes a long time for Churches to accept or reject revisionist teaching.  That much is true.  And at times incompatible teaching has co-existed within the same Catholic Church.  But we expect more from our Bishops and Archbishops.  For those of us ‘in the trenches’, living out our faith in challenging contexts, we want to know that the leadership of our Church ‘has our back’…  that when we do face opposition for seeking to be faithful in our witness of Christ, our leaders will defend us and support us.  It is far from clear that this is now the case in the Church of England.

Secondly, is the enduring question of what it means for the Church of England specifically, and what it means for Living in Love and Faith, and the anticipated General Synod debates and votes over the next months.  The short answer is that there is nothing coming out of the Lambeth Conference that indicates one way or the other the leadership that the Archbishop, or indeed any other Bishop will give on this.  Based on what he has been said at Lambeth, there is no a priori commitment to either side of the debate.  My own sense is that this does not bode well, and that it will lead to either a stand-off, or more likely, an attempt to create space for both theologies to work out at the local parish level.  This will be presented as a paragon of tolerance and ‘unity’, but is in fact the worst of all worlds, presenting as if there is no change to the teaching of the Church, when in fact there has been massive change.  Tremendous pressure will be brought to bear on parish priests and PCCs, local congregations will be rent asunder, relationships between parishes and their Diocese will be critically undermined, and we will be committed to the long slow march to denominatinal collapse (as is happening to each denomination that has shifted itst eaching in this matter. It is important to realise that there are whole Dioceses in ECUSA that have a lower Sunday Attnedance than some large UK Anglican Churches).  Once we have lost our commitment to Scriptures as authoritative, it is only a matter of time before any Church will drift from its moorings.

The third is more subtle, and more insidious because of it.  There is more than a whiff of latent cultural elitism from Lambeth.  It is hard to nail down, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  Listen again to the narrative: those Provinces (mostly Western) who have decided to step away from the historic teaching of the Church have done so after ‘long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature’.  Those who seek to stand on the traditional interpretations of Scripture (mostly from the Global South) are culturally bound.  Listen to how ‘orthodox’ and ‘revisionist’ parts ot he Anglican Communion are described in this key part of the Archbishop’s remarks on the Call on Human Dignity:

For the large majority of the Anglican Communion the traditional understanding of marriage is something that is understood, accepted and without question, not only by Bishops but their entire Church, and the societies in which they live. For them, to question this teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries would make the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For many churches to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.

For a minority, we can say almost the same. They have not arrived lightly at their ideas that traditional teaching needs to change. They are not careless about scripture. They do not reject Christ. But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature. For them, to question this different teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries is making the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For these churches not to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.

In spite of the fact that ‘we can almost say the same’ about both sides of the tension, he doesn’t.  Traditional Churches hold their position because that is the position of the ‘societies in which they live’.  There is no mention here of the commitment to Scripture, prayer, deep study or reflection that is said to have given rise to the Revisionist position (whether this is the case or not is a separate question).  Neither is there recognition that revisionist Churches exist in the context of societies that have similarly moved away from anything representing the Bible’s teaching on amtters of humanity.  I have read his speech, and particualrly those paragraphs a number of times, and I accept that there may be more charitable interpretations.  But in such a formal and scrutinised statement on a critical issue facing Lambeth 2022, the words matter!  The ones that are used and the ones that aren’t!  It is hardly surprising that the South Sudanese Primate, Justin Badi could say during the Conference: ‘We often feel that our voices are not listened to, or respected...’.

Of course, it also ignores the many Anglicans in the ‘West’ who hold to the teaching of Scripture in matters of human dignity, marriage and sexuality, and who were ordained into, or who attend Anglican Churches precisely because of that Church’s historic legacy, and who are distraught at the prospect of it’s being changed, or even side-lined.  It bypasses the sense of betrayal felt by the vast majority of the global Anglican Communion (in the West as well as the Global South), and the growing frustration felt by many in the UK – who incidentally believe what they do irrespective of whether it makes us ‘a victim of derision, contempt of even attack’.  We believe what we believe because this is what the Living God has revealed in His Word, and because this is ‘Good News’, and the path to true human flourishing.

And in case you think I am being overly harsh, here is a citation from a piece posted at Anglican Ink (kind of an online Global Anglican newspaper) that puts it even more strongly:

Get it? This is a debate between unthinking traditionalists and unblinking theologians. Very politely, but one may say utterly ruthlessly, the Archbishop of Canterbury has painted a picture of primitive, unquestioning, traditionalists, who reflect their culture, in contrast to the deeply prayerful, intellectual progressives, who have studied the scriptures.

The assumption, of course, is that eventually the immature, unscientific laggards will eventually grow-up and catch-up.

The assumption is wrong, as one archbishop of the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) said with a knowing look, “Do they think we are children?”

And so, the 15th Lambeth Conference (with a budget running into millions!) came to a close with an insistence that sexuality wasn’t the only, or even the main item on the agenda!  Which is true - the agenda covered a huge variety of issues including Mission, Safeguarding, Anglican Identity, Reconciliation, Human Dignity, Environment and Sustainable Development, Technology, Economics, Centralisation (as a means of power and control), Persecution, Unity, Inter-faith Relations, Discipleship, and Science and Faith, and more...  Undoubtedly there is much to rejoice in, and in many places there were Calls, affirmations and statements that re-iterated the Church’s historical priorities.  Many Bishops are reflecting this as they write to their Dioceses, often seeking to underline the fact that Lambeth was about more than questions about human sexuality.  We need to hear that, and to celebrate it.  By all accounts it was, for those who attended, a deeply moving experience as they studied Scriptures together and heard of the experience of the Church elsewhere in the world.  This is only to be expected.  But how moving a Conference is can hardly be the criteria by which it’s impact is judged.  And the question isn’t so much about what was ‘on the agenda’.  It includes what was important to those who weren’t privileged to be setting the agenda, and who saw fit to bring their own resolutions to the Conference.  And it includes the question of what difference the Conference will make for our witness to Christ, whether it will contribute to the ongoing decline of the Church in the UK (and growth elsewhere in the world), or change its trajectory.   That remains to be seen.  But this 15th Lambeth Conference simply because of when it was held in the history of Anglicanism, was always going to be about, and was always going to be judged by, what it said about Lambeth 1:10.  And any claim to the contrary is simply untenable.  And on this, it is far from clear that its legacy will be as positive as some Bishops are claiming…

The Archbishop of Canterbury is, I fear, right on one thing.  We are facing an ‘existential threat’ to the Anglican Church.    

The ‘Communique of Orthodox Bishops, presented by the Steering Group of the GFSA , and suggesting the end of the Communion can be found here:

https://www.thegsfa.org/_files/ugd/6e992c_8951f0f7ce4b4e7083f877b4b38294a2.pdf

And an interesting blog exploring this and highlighting the key issues facing the Global Anglican Communion from a perspective across the pond, can be found here:

https://anglican.ink/2022/08/11/anglican-unscripted-752-walking-apart/