Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/639
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Windsor Process / Anglicanism, Evangelical
Other articles by Andrew Goddard are available from this site

Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum
See the 27 comments on this article

Civil Partnerships & Same-Sex Relationships in the Church of England:

What is happening and how should evangelicals respond?

by Andrew Goddard

What has been announced?

Two new developments have been announced.

1. In relation to the 2005 Statement on Civil Partnerships a review has been established and will be completed in 2012 (although there is no commitment to publish it then). It will include considering whether priests in civil partnerships can become bishops.

2. There is to be a “wider look at the Church of England’s approach to same-sex relationships more generally” which will produce a consultation document in 2013.

Why is a review on Civil Partnerships needed?

There are a number of reasons for this review:

1. The 2005 document was heavily criticised by some for being too permissive and by others for being too restrictive. This was evident in the February 2007 General Synod debate which in its final form did not speak positively of the statement but noted that the House of Bishops intended to keep their Pastoral Statement under review. This is what is now happening.

2. The understanding of, and response to, civil partnerships has evolved in both church and society since they were introduced. In particular,

a. they are widely seen as “same-sex marriage” by another name

b. registration will soon be permitted on religious premises (and the Church of England has signalled that General Synod will decide if Anglican churches are eligible to apply for authorisation), and

c. the government will shortly consult on introducing same-sex marriage either alongside or instead of civil partnerships.

3. The 2005 statement permitted clergy to enter civil partnerships. This was because

The House of Bishops does not regard entering into a civil partnership as intrinsically incompatible with holy orders, provided the person concerned is willing to give assurances to his or her bishop that the relationship is consistent with the standards for the clergy set out in Issues in Human Sexuality (para 19).

However, the statement also stated,

Because of the ambiguities surrounding the character and public nature of civil partnerships, the House of Bishops would advise clergy to weigh carefully the perceptions and assumptions which would inevitably accompany a decision to register such a relationship (para 22).

A number of clergy have entered civil partnerships and it appears not all would be willing to give the assurances referred to in the statement and not all have been asked to give them by their bishops.

4. In speaking of a clergyperson giving assurances to his or her bishop the statement clearly only considered the situation of deacons and priests and not bishops.

5. The House of Bishops – like the wider church – is probably not of one mind on whether someone should be able to be a bishop if in a civil partnership, even if they can give assurances. In such a situation instituting a formal review is an established way forward.

6. There is, as a result of all these factors, more work to be done on how the Church of England is to understand civil partnerships and to respond to those laity and clergy who enter into them. In the words of the House of Bishops’ statement – “Within the Anglican tradition our theological thinking is formed by a reasoned interpretation of Scripture, within the living tradition of the Church informed by pastoral experience. The House believes there is a theological task to be done to clarify further our understanding of the nature and status of these partnerships”.

What are the constraints on the Civil Partnership Review?

1. The statement is clear that “It will be undertaken in the context of the Church of England’s teaching on same sex relations as set out in the General Synod motion of November 1987 and Issues in Human Sexuality (a teaching statement from the House of Bishops in 1991)”. This is really only a descriptive statement and clearly does not prohibit developments away from those two key contextual sources.

2. However, it is also stated that the review will “be consistent with the approach taken by the Anglican Communion in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 and subsequently”. While “consistent with the approach” has some potential for manoeuvre, this gives little room for moving towards a more affirming stance towards civil partnerships. This is because that resolution, among other things,

a. states that “abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage”,

b. rejects “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and

c. “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions”.

What has changed as a result of the statement?

1. The only clear change is that the House of Bishops have decided that “it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of the review and that clergy in civil partnerships should not at present, therefore, be nominated for piscopal appointment”.

2. This announcement goes beyond the legal advice recently released and upholds a more conservative position. The legal advice simply stated that “where someone is in a civil partnership and/or is known to have been in a same-sex relationship, even though now celibate, it is for the CNC in the case of diocesan appointments and for the diocesan bishop, in consultation with the relevant archbishop, in relation to suffragan appointments, to come to a view whether the person concerned can act as a focus for unity because of these matters” (para 27) and that in piscopal appointments “relevant factors which can properly be taken into account include... whether he was in a civil partnership” (para 29)

What has shaped the Church of England response to civil partnerships and same-sex relationships in the past?

1. The Church of England has sought to uphold both its own teaching in the 1987 General Synod motion and the Communion’s teaching in Lambeth I.10. This holds that marriage between a man and a woman is the divinely ordained context for sexual relationships and thus that same-sex sexual relationships “fall short”, are not to be blessed and should not be entered into by clergy.

2. In 1991 Issues distinguished between laity and clergy in its guidance. It allowed freedom of conscience for lay people to enter into a faithful same-sex sexual relationship but required all clergy to live in accordance with church teaching. This was not a case of different moral rules for each but of different levels of discipline within the church.

3. In responding to civil partnerships the bishops sought to distinguish those that were sexual from those that were non-sexual. They permitted the laity to enter either form without being disciplined but only permitted clergy to enter civil partnerships that were avowedly non-sexual.

4. Lambeth I.10’s restrictions in relation to same-sex unions were understood by the bishops in their 2005 statement to prevent blessing of any civil partnership but to allow clergy to enter civil partnerships if they were non-sexual.

What might be proposed as a result of the Civil Partnership Review?

1. There are broadly two practical areas to review – (a) the church’s pastoral and/or liturgical response to those entering civil partnerships, (b) the church’s expectation of deacons, priests and bishops in relation to civil partnerships. These need to be shaped by what the new statement describes as the “theological task” of clarifying “our understanding of the nature and status of these partnerships”.

Two major changes in stance being sought – full acceptance or total opposition?

2. Some (such as Changing Attitude) clearly hope the review will lead to a wholly positive response to civil partnerships as an authentic Christian pattern of life. This would result in

a. removing the current distinction between sexual and non-sexual civil partnerships

b. allowing partnerships to be blessed, and

c. being in a civil partnership as, in itself, of no significance in relation to one’s suitability for ordination.

Given the need to act “consistent with the approach taken by the Anglican Communion” and the ongoing (until 2013) review of wider teaching, such major developments appear highly unlikely to happen.

3. Some (such as Anglican Mainstream) hope the review will remove some of the distinctions that have been drawn in the past to produce a more consistent and coherent negative response to civil partnerships. This would result in

a. cautioning against affirmative pastoral responses to lay Christians who enter civil partnerships,

b. being in a civil partnership judged as something “intrinsically incompatible with holy orders”,

c. extending the current discipline on clergy to all who minister with the bishop’s licence.

Such developments would be “consistent with the approach taken by the Anglican Communion” and so compatible with the terms of reference. However, taken as a whole these measures could be seen as marking a significant change to a more conservative stance prior to the 2013 consultation document. They would certainly be opposed by a number of bishops who wish the church to move in the opposite direction and they may be too counter-cultural in their pastoral outworking for others who are supportive of traditional teaching.

Maintaining the current stance of distinguishing within the category of civil partnerships – challenges

4. The alternative to either a universally positive or a universally negative stance to civil partnerships is clearly to maintain some of the established distinctions, notably those between acceptable and unacceptable civil partnerships and between discipline in relation to clergy and laity. Here there are a number of challenges –

a. By what method and on what grouds is one to distinguish between those civil partnerships compatible with church teaching and thus holy orders and those not?

b. How is such a distinction to be applied to different groups? Can the sharp distinction between clergy discipline and lay discipline be maintained given the number of lay people who exercise significant authorised ministry within the church? Should a further distinction be drawn between what is required of bishops compared to other clergy?

c. How does a proposal have theological integrity and coherence in any differentiation between laity, deacons and priests, and bishops? How, in particular, does it not appear simply to be a pragmatic compromise of a divided church with those who reject church teaching shaping a more permissive response to lay people but church teaching continuing to be applied to those in (at least some) ordained ministries?

How could the church distinguish between civil partnerships? – Possible processes

5. One path would be to abandon the attempt to distinguish between civil partnerships and instead create an ecclesial structure for same-sex relationships that was distinctively Christian. Christians could then be encouraged to enter this either alongside or as an alternative to civil partnerships. This route would enable some form of liturgy to be created and would be the pattern of life required for any ordained person in a same-sex relationship. Although there is much attractive in this proposal, the definition of such a way of life will require the work of the other review and a period of consultation and discernment. Given the current stark divisions in the church over whether such a relationship must be a form of avowedly non-sexual friendship or could be a quasi-marital sexual relationship it seems unlikely a consensus could easily be reached on such a structure.

6. An alternative path would continue with the current practice of deciding whether civil partnerships are compatible with Christian teaching on a case-by-case basis. In relation to suitability for ordination this could follow broadly one of two forms. The current practice of setting down the principles for distinguishing and leaving bishops to apply these at their discretion could be continued. Alternatively, following the pattern of remarriage after divorce, a canon could be created which stated civil partnerships – like marriage during the lifetime of a former spouse in canon C4 – would normally be an impediment to entry to holy orders but a faculty could be issued by the archbishop of the province for the removal of that impediment. There could then be established an agreed, consistent process for issuing such a faculty. Either way the question would need to be considered what criteria – simply whether the relationship is sexual? – would determine whether or not a particular civil partnership was viewed as acceptable.

Distinguishing different groups within the church in relation to discipline

7. In relation to different groups and the form of church discipline, the distinction between clergy and laity needs to be reviewed and a better rationale needs to be given for any such distinction. Clearly it is neither desirable nor practicable to implement the same form of discipline with regard to all lay Anglicans as to clergy. However, the fact that bishops are to be satisfied that Readers are “of good life” (canon E5) gives weight to the claim that at least this lay office needs to be considered in relation to whether, given current CofE and Communion teaching, certain forms of civil partnership are incompatible with the office. This is confirmed by reports of widely varying practice across dioceses in relation to civil partnered lay readers.

8. The review is explicitly going to address the question of civil partnered clergy becoming bishops. There would appear to be broadly three options in relation to nomination of civil partnered clergy as bishops –

a. no further enquiry beyond that already made of them as clergy entering civil partnerships

b. additional enquiries and scrutiny above and beyond those applied to clergy

c. a total prohibition (as has been applied until the review reports).

Here it is important that the church has a clearly principled stance and does not simply appeal without further justification to the bishop as “focus of unity”. Although this is an important and distinctive element of the episcopal office, if the church teaches that a particular way of life is consistent with Christian discipleship and not in itself an impediment to ordination then some explanation needs to be given to justify it being made an absolute impediment to episcopal ministry simply because a minority do not accept this teaching.

Forms of legitimate pastoral response

9. With regard to liturgical and pastoral responses to lay and ordained Anglicans, a formal blessing of civil partnerships is unlikely due to the constraints of consistency with Lambeth I.10. However, there will be pressure for other forms of recognition and celebration. Here the 2007 proposals of Canadian bishops may be looked to by some for guidance. The new statement notes that “We recognise that bishops and clergy have found ways of engaging pastorally with those in civil partnerships, both at the time of registration and subsequently” without being specific. These forms of pastoral engagement have included bishops attending their clergy’s civil partnerships and clergy holding a Communion service and/or service of thanksgiving (as distinct from blessing) in church for civil partners. Here it is important that the breadth of permitted pastoral response is consistent with, and supportive rather than undermining of, the church’s theological understanding of “the nature and status” of civil partnerships.

What is the other work that has been announced?

1. Little detail has been given in relation to the wider project also announced. All that has been said is that the House has “decided that more work is now needed on the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality more generally” and so, with the intention that it will “produce a further consultation document in 2013”, it will

- “draw together material from the listening process which has been undertaken within the Church of England over the recent years in the light of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution”

- “offer proposals on how the continuing discussion within the Church of England about these matters might best be shaped in the light of the listening process”

The Bishop of Norwich stated that this “is motivated by a desire to help shape the continuing debate constructively and not by any view about what the outcome should be”.

2. This new development may represent the implementation of Archbishop Rowan’s call for work in this area at General Synod in November 2010, which Giles Goddard and I recently urged be taken forward in an article in Church Times. Archbishop Rowan’s speech

a. called urgently for “some thoughtful engagement that will help us understand how people who read the same Bible and share the same baptism can come to strongly diverse conclusions” as “in the last few years the debate on sexuality has not really moved much”.

b. noted that “neither side always has the opportunity of clarifying how they see the focal theological issues – how one or the other position relates to our belief in a divine Saviour”

c. commented that “if we are not to be purely tribal about this, we need the chance for some sort of discussion that is not dominated by the need to make an instant decision or to react to developments and pressures elsewhere”.

d. recognised that “there is a formidable literature in this area, with much theological sophistication”, but also that “in the debates we involve ourselves in, in and out of Synod, here and elsewhere in the Communion, the prevailing tone is often rather different”.

e. appealed to Synod “to help me do better by working with me to create the ambience where better understanding may happen. I hope that Synod will not be averse to thinking about how we can take this forward, without the pressure of feeling we have some single and all-important decision to make”

What is to be done and how is it to be done?

3. One crucial and as yet unanswered, perhaps still largely unaddressed, question is that of this work’s intended focus and goal and hence of what structure and method(s) are best suited to achieving that goal. The announcement places great emphasis on the “listening process” within the Church of England. It is however unclear what particular examples of this in recent years it has in mind or what specific insights – in terms of either substance or process – it believes these might yield in terms of “the continuing discussion within the Church of England”. Archbishop Rowan’s Synod speech also spoke positively of the successor to the Communion’s listening process – “the methods currently being developed in the ‘Continuing Indaba’ project, with its success in creating many such spaces for face-to- face discussion across cultures”. Although much value has come from these two methods it is not clear how helpful they are on their own if the goal of this work by the House of Bishops is – in the Archbishop’s words – “clarifying the focal theological issues” or, in the Bishop of Norwich’s words, to “help shape the continuing debate constructively”.

4. Within the recent history of CofE and wider Anglican discussions there are a number of other different models that could be used in this project, most notably

a. The International Anglican Conversations on Human Sexuality produced a report in 2002 which set out common ground and areas of disagreement after meetings which were in part shaped by the Public Conversations Project

b. Some Issues in Human Sexuality was published in 2003 after a working group of the House of Bishops had spent several years discussing the issues among themselves and with interested parties

5. Various other models have been developed and used outside church contexts to enable opposing perspectives to discover shared beliefs and clarify the nature of diverging perspectives. Among these there is the Bridge Building Dialogues Program and National Consensus Process developed by the Satcher Health Leadership Institute at Morehouse School of Medicine, the funders of the Communion’s Continuing Indaba Project (a project which has some similarities to, but is significantly different from, this consensus process model).

6. There are clearly high levels of tensions in relation to the subject of sexuality. This new work by the House will therefore likely become the focus of conflicting hopes and fears in the wider church. It is , therefore, vitally important that it has clear terms of reference and works by a coherent process that has integrity, engenders the confidence of as wide a spectrum of views as possible, and is able to deliver the goals sought. While there must be an element of confidentiality during its work, the work of the group also needs to be as open and transparent as possible.

How should evangelicals respond to these developments?

1. It is vitally important that evangelicals committed to the biblical and traditional sexual ethic set out in Lambeth I.10 engage constructively with these two new initiatives. Some, weary of apparently unending dialogue and listening, fearful of the possible outcome and concerned to put their energy into more important issues, may be tempted to keep their distance or engage in a defensive manner. Such approaches, however, risk the wider church not recognising the strength– both in numbers and in argument – of the evangelical positon.

2. These two reviews provide an opportunity for evangelicals to

a. re-explore the historic Christian vision for sex and marriage

b. regain intellectual and spiritual confidence in the biblical rootedness, theological coherence and significance and psycho-social validity of traditional Christian teaching compared to a revisionist position

c. enter constructive theological dialogue with those seeking to revise Christian teaching in order both to correct and be corrected by those with whom we disagree.

3. As this is an initiative of the bishops it is important that evangelical bishops are willing to provide leadership in helping evangelicals and the wider church through biblical and ethical teaching and witness in this area. Bishop Graham James commented that “contrary to popular perception the House of Bishops has spent very little time over recent years discussing homosexuality”. The same is true of many bishops in their ministries. There is an understandable desire not to major on a controversial topic and a fear of being aligned with some voices that are labelled extreme or obsessive. Nevertheless, there is also the danger – that the review may perpetuate – of allowing the need for ongoing listening to become an excuse for silence. Although listening and dialogue is vital, it risks creating a teaching vacuum when bishops should be articulating biblical and church teaching in this area through prophetic engagement with secular culture and winsome, persuasive apologetic and teaching within the church.

4. Evangelicals as a whole need to engage more seriously with the experience and insights of those who experience same-sex attraction, especially with those who do so and share their understanding of the Christian sexual ethic . This requires listening to how they understand their sexuality in the light of the gospel and the biblical witness and how they live it out in Christian discipleship.

5. There are a range of voices here among those who seek to live consistently with biblical teaching. Some testify to changes in the strength or direction of their sexual attractions or seek such changes. Others believe their life will remain one of struggle against their same-sex attractions to those. Some have accepted their sexuality as a form of divine ‘gifting’ or ‘vocation’ and, whilst holding to the disciplines of chastity in singleness are happy to identify as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ Christians. Others reject such identity labels based on sexuality sometimes describing themselves as ‘post-gay’. Only by recognising and relating positively to this full range of Christian approaches can evangelicals contribute constructively to wider church discussions by

a. understanding the implications of traditional teaching

b. developing credible pastoral responses to enable such Christians to live faithful, chaste lives with the support of the church

c. addressing elements of unhealthy suppression of same-sex attraction and sinful homophobia among evangelicals

d. living out an attractive alternative to the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships offered by wider society and some within the church

6. Evangelicals also need to consider a range of challenging questions about the moral status of civil partnerships and their significance in the public life of the church. These include

a. Are civil partnerships problematic in the life of the church only if they are an avowedly sexual relationship?

b. Should those in civil partnerships give assurances – and if so of what kind and to whom? – that the partnership is not sexual or can one assume conformity with biblical teaching until evidence is given otherwise?

c. Is the problem with civil partnerships their public quasi-marital nature, irrespective of whether they are sexual?

d. Can civil partnerships be viewed and lived out as a form of chaste same-sex loving friendship as has existed for decades amongst evangelicals, including evangelical leaders in ministry and mission?

e. Does the lack of legal clarity about the meaning and significance of civil partnerships and the public perception in wider culture of them as ‘same-sex marriage’ mean entering one is intrinsically undermining of Christian teaching before the world? Is this so, irrespective of the couple’s intentions and even if the world – and many in the church – are not scandalised by such action?

f. Even if not to be commended, can civil partnerships be tolerated as a “second best” for Christians who are struggling to order their same-sex attractions in as godly and healthy way as possible? If so, does this extend to those in authorised ministry?

7. In addressing these questions together, evangelicals also need to acknowledge those areas where there are differences in emphases among themselves and consider how to avoid partisan and campaigning stances that risk making these into fracture points. These relate to such issues as

a. different pastoral responses to those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction and those in same-sex relationships

b. the theological significance and ecclesial weight of Christian disagreements over this issue

c. how to respond to bishops and other Christians who hold, express or implement views contrary to Communion teaching

d. what evangelicals should do if the reviews lead to developments that they believe to be inconsistent with that teaching and with Scripture.

8. Finally, as those with a particular concern to share the gospel and participate in God’s mission, evangelicals need to consider how the way in which they engage with this issue is consistent with that primary calling. We are called to announce and live out a sexual revolution revealed in Scripture’s teaching about human sexuality. We are continuing, however, to live through a different and often totally incompatible form of sexual revolution that extends far beyond the issue of homosexuality and civil partnerships. Perhaps the most important question therefore is how we articulate – in word and deed - our alternative biblical sexual revolution in a way that provides good news to our society, including those within it who experience same-sex attraction whom the church has so often failed in the past.

Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum

Forum Posts About This Article:

Posted by: Dave Sunday 31 July 2011 - 11:34pm
Nersen, The way to deal with false teaching in the church is to have an episcopate with a back bone which is not afraid to use it's disciplinary powers. Be warned, such action would also be taken against evangelicals who refuse to accept the bishops authority.Withdrawal of finance to the diocese shows that you do not believe in in the nature of the CofE and is really a first step to a UDI. It would be detrimental to many good ministries in difficult areas. Dave

Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 31 July 2011 - 07:00pm
Nerson Just spotted your question, "do i or you decide what is false teaching or does the holy spirit" of course the holy spirit decides and how wonderful is that, the holy spirit is like hmm i know "flubber" the movie it moves around and it changes shape according to its environment, or a chamelion . I dont mean that disrespectively for what i am trying to convey is that the holy spirit is with us / within us and we are all different, in different temprtures, different environments and yet the Holy spirit enables us to be in Jesus and with Jesus in different ways at different times.. This was why i said i have difficulty with false teaching, for teaching is just that teaching , we start in different places we end up in different places but we are taught , that no matter who we are what we are that on the acceptance of Jesus as our saviour we are of one mind and that is the "mind of the communion" through the "teaching" of Christ we come to a place where we can be "Christ like" We are all learners, would there be any need for discernment if we were not out of sink occassionally , with where we are in relation to christ and his teaching and others. The context of false teaching is not whether we agree or disagree, it is whether we trust that God is in control at any given time. Thy kingdom come Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven OR To be in your presence, not rushing away where your love surrounds me, This is my desire oh lord this is my desire. Is this maybe Heaven on earth..??. Waterangel

Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 31 July 2011 - 10:41am
Dave - it is those who want to go against the 'mind of the Communion', who reject the 39 articles......it is for them to show how they can be housed and paid by the COfE with integrity.....and there is zero reason (from scripture or common sense) why everybody should be funded regardless of what they do or teach or how few attend ....... some are unfit and unfaithful and not up to the job.....some churches closing improves the witness in an area with the embarassment of visible decline gone, Christians who believe the gospel can sometimes get on better with talking about the gospel.

Posted by: Dave Sunday 24 July 2011 - 10:20am
Nersen Paul, Sorry, no joke. As Mark has recently pointed out, conservatives need to show that the are committed to the CofE as an established national church. If all we are concerned about is the freedom to express our own vision of Christianity, leaving when bishops become too obnoxious is inevitable. Conservatives need to make a positive contribution to the rest of the church. Using financial strength to impose your will is not the way. At the moment financial help is flowing through the bishops office, which strengthens the bishops hand. I am suggesting more financial and practical help directly other parishes so that personal links can be build up. This still needs central guidance to ensure that no-one is left out. Dave

Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 23 July 2011 - 09:43pm
That's a joke, right, Dave?

Posted by: Dave Thursday 21 July 2011 - 11:41am
Nersen Paul, I am all for co-operation at deanery level. Some direction from the diocese is necessary as archdeacons are probably the only ones with a sufficiently detailed knowledge of the situation throughout the wider area. Dave

Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 20 July 2011 - 07:48pm
John, I don't like the soviet model where growing churches are taxed more when they grow to fund dying churches led by people who too often are those with whom they would not partner because of theological differences...... would prefer voluntary partnerships.....then the church you went to might have got much more rather than money being spread thinly to keep some churches open when very few choose to go to them. Waterangel...do you or I decide or does what the Holy Spirit has revealed in scripture decide what is false teaching? If people take stances which contradict scripture that is false teaching....because it is anti-biblical teaching. I don't have the authority to tell anyone that they can go against scripture and that is fine with God, so I stick to what he has revealed in scripture to decide what is true and what is false teaching.

Posted by: Dave Wednesday 20 July 2011 - 06:34pm
Waterangel, I am glad I made you smile. My words conjured up a different picture for you than I had in mind. I said weeding rather than sweeping and I had in mind a large overgrown grave yard. I really do not want the church to be responsible for sending pensioners up ladders to deal with guttering. There are many reasons why people leave a church which can be dealt with once they have been identified. My theory is that a church with say 20 adult members should be able to be spiritually viable if they are committed and they are spread evenly over the age range. Once they are all over 50, I think the church is unlikely to be attractive to people under 35. This means that an aging church is a dying church unless something radical is done. If the answer is planting new congregations which appeal to the under 40's we must hope that they will continue to attract new members at their younger end as they naturally get older. I am suspicious of churches designed for a single age group or social group. Pensioners of 70 who are very active and active in the church may find they need more support in 10 years time. Perhaps the answer is to evangelize the 60 year olds? Dave

Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 20 July 2011 - 03:46pm
Nerson I have great difficulty with the "context of" false teaching. I honestly believe that "different teaching" so long as it is not teaching to harm is not false..Revisionist constantly look for ways of making the gospel relevant in time, conservative traditionalist constantly teach about the value of historic text in the traditional sense. The reality is that maturity brings us to a place where we are no longer the active revisionist but see the value in the evangelism of the gospel of revising the language, which is the first step for believers to get to the point where they too value the traditional aspects of Christianity. There is a verse somewhere in the bible about not being blinkered, i am too tired too look it up right now, but we need not to be so traditional as to become tunnel visioned and therefore miss the periphery. Dave You made me smile, my husband would come and live with you if he thought all he had to do was sweep the graveyard and a bit of dusting..Shh dont tell him.. But on a serious note i think you will find that there are indeed many elderly doing much more than that. But true our local church has just had the tower repaired at the cost of over 200,000. It took nearly a year to raise and hard work by all concerned..I had nothing to do with this particular project, but have been part of other money raising activities for others. The sheer dedication and talent that goes in from the elderly would cost an awful lot in consultancy fees. I have also known a few retired architects and builders who have given their services for free at the age of 70 plus. What i am saying is that of course there comes a time when they cannot physically contribute, but their value cannot be measured in the many other ways they do..I dont have the figures on how many small churches need repairs or where they are geographically, and how many of them are in the same geographical area, it would be a good idea to have public records of this , so if "a building" mission team was around they could be taken in hand. Just a thought!! Diminishing congregations may be partly due to revisionist agenda's or inappropriate ministry, or it may be due to inappropriate buildings, or no transport or security issues. There are many reasons, my own would be i have a social concience, i do not want to be made to feel worthless and guilty life is hard enough. I think the church attendance is dwindling partly for reasons that due to proffessional boundaries for safety reasons the clergy now treat congregation members like clients to be dealt with. Most people want fellowship on equal terms, they want a community gospel and a living word. Waterangel

Posted by: Dave Wednesday 20 July 2011 - 10:10am
Nersen, Origen Adam wrote "there are plenty of 'actively' gay clergy and readers in responsible relationships who are the backbone of the Church of England" . I think we can accept the rather vague "plenty" but to me "backbone" implies more than I have seen any numbers to suggest.. If the CofE has a backbone it is not hard line CE's, Anglo Catholics, Charismatics, or liberals but a broad church middle which at times is inspired by these groups. some of these may have joined Inclusive Church but I doubt that it is a major part of their identity. The recent EA survey showed that only 59% of evangelicals believed that "homosexual actions are always wrong". http://www.eauk.org/snapshot/read.cfm If you want to call the CofE back to "orthodoxy" you need better arguments, better presentation and more followers at ground level. A punitive budgetary policy apart from being unchristian is misdirected and will not work. It is more likely to strengthen the image of evangelicals as those nasty bible bashers. Dave

Posted by: John Martin Wednesday 20 July 2011 - 09:16am
Nersen you say: "As for 'backbone of the CofE'.....let's move to every parish having to meet its own costs ....." Mate, you don't get it. This is a middle class person talking middle class tosh. For nearly a decade my wife and I lived a couple of miles to the east of the City of London. We attended a church which was only able to raise about a third of what it cost to stay operational. Faithful priests and lay people worked hard, but this was stony ground. To say they are part of a system of "subsidized dead wood" just won't do. Their fragility has nothing to do with any revisionist agenda. Are you saying that we can cheerfully close these parishes, even if it means that great swathes of our cities and countryside would be without a Christian presence? The the truth is that other denominations working on the model of every parish or congregation meeting their own costs left the scene a long time ago.

Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 19 July 2011 - 09:09pm
waterangel -I responded to an unsubstantiated claim about who is the 'backbone' of the CofE and was not commenting on the rural church..... too many who are unfit or unfaithful (according to the vows they take when ordained) think turning up, paid for by others, seem to think they are the 'backbone' when in fact they are a significant part of the reason for decline..... their empty and emptying churches are never their fault, never related to what they teach or how they live...... but the good news is that very few of the great British public go to hear revisionist musings..... and in 50 yrs, the subsidised dead wood in the CofE will be gone...... if bishops do not have the courage to take actions in line with scripture against false teaching and false teachers, demographics will do the job any way. One thing one notices about false teachers is that they never take responsibility for their empty churches.....some even blame the full ones down the road..... it is never their revisionist ideas...never them..... still, it is not long before that part of the CofE is gone. TEC has taken itself to an even more advanced position.....they say they are revisionist because of their 'context' but in a country with very high rates of church going, they get hardly anyone and hardly anyone under 60.... but it isn't the fault of their revisionist ideas, of course...... in the whole state of New Hampshire, only 10k people in revisionist TEC churches...... in a country with high rates of church going...... revisionists are very unconvincing....to the public...thankfully.

Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 19 July 2011 - 04:22pm
OOPs should have gone to specsavers (lol) actually i did and i still put "floor" instead of "flaw"Oh well you knew what i meant. Thank God I am not perfect lol

Posted by: Dave Tuesday 19 July 2011 - 03:49pm
Waterangel I was responding to Nersen's statement "As for 'backbone of the CofE'.....let's move to every parish having to meet its own costs and we shall see the backbone and the subsidized dead wood.....because the great British public is voting with its feet and, as in the US, they're not taken in by revisionists." I would have thought an army of pensioners was needed for the dusting and weeding the graveyard but I trust you leave the roof and steeple repairs to the professionals. Nersen, I think I was presupposing your statement was based on what I remember you saying previously and the reasons given by CE's for not paying their quota. I do not know whether to call your scheme for reforming the Church Thatcherite or refer to the Beaching plan for the railways. Your politics may be make everyone stand on his own two feet and let the lame dogs go to the wall but that is not the gospel of Jesus. Your business model makes every believer in a church which cannot pay it's way "dead wood". I believe that they are in the main faithful disciples. Here is a list of gay friendly churches. I assume these are the type of church you call revisionist. http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/foriegn_nations/UK.htm If you look at two of the London churches http://www.st-james-piccadilly.org/ and http://www.stbotolphs.org.uk/, they look to have just as much activity as a lively evangelical church. Is there any reason to believe they are not net financial contributors. The churches which tend to be subsidized by the diocese are those with poor small congregations and expensive old inappropriate buildings. This means high clergy to parishioner ratio, lower per capita giving and high accommodation costs per parishioner. Have you any evidence on the reason for the decline in numbers in the US and UK. What of those who will not go near an evangelical church because of the testimony of their gay friends. Charlottes' comments hold up a useful mirror to the CE world http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005088.html#comments Dave

Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 19 July 2011 - 12:18pm
I am not sure why you have posted about, the rural or small church financial and maintainance issues, on a thread about Civil partnerships, but i trust that it fits somewhere.. Dave you are so right about the churches, particuarly on "!he who plays the piper plays the tune". There is a floor in that thinking on behalf of the conservatives though. Financially speaking and that is as on another thread Lawrence C said "not all that is said is recorded" This is the case with maintainance of buildings, Church buildings it is often the over 60s that actually physically maintain these buildings or lead teams that do so, and often at no expense to the Church. A lot of practical maintainance is done by the retired. In fact i would go so far as to say that the Church is probably one of the few organisations that gets away withusing the voluntary services of the elder people adhoc without respect for their welfare. That respect should include maintaining the smaller churches in a way that they cannot. Now if that proves to financially expensive for the Church authorities that simply serves to prove how valuable the voluntary maintainance of the church from the elder people is. The experience of practical shortcuts in an older persons head outweighs any degree any of the students will walk away with for at least 20 years..Like a fool and his money are soon parted , so would be the downfall of the church if the elderly and they were parted. Trust me i know my husbands old enough to teach me, though i went to wickes today to get some drill bits and screws for him, so i knew i wanted dry wall screws i knew i wanted a particular legnths, what i did not know was that the drill bits and screws had matching measurements , the wickes man told me that, now when i said to my husband why have you never told me that, he said "we have to have some trade secrets.hmm can you imagine me trying to use the wrong size drill bit with the wrong screw head size..Yes you men know! your very naughty..But it highlights nicely the value of accumalated knowledge.. Waterangel..

Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 18 July 2011 - 09:55pm
Dave, well done, you've knocked your own straw man down.....I made no link between size and faithfulness but there is dead wood in the church, surviving because of the stupidity of penalizing growing churches to sustain 'ministry' hardly anyone wants....and I can't blame the public for not going to many CofE churches....but dead wood survives on subsidies.....from evangelical churches often. It doesn't matter ultimately.... the public vote with their feet....in the UK and in revisionist TEC which won't have any members soon on current trends....I'm not worried about revisionists or closet revisionists wanting to call themselves evangelical...the public aren't easily fooled. Mark, you think the bishops will go against Lambeth 1.10 just because they feel they have to address issues in church order which arise because a few infiltrate the church and push false teaching from inside? Well, wait and see. It'll not happen....because people like you cannot make strong arguments from scripture to show the sexual activity mentioned in Lambeth 1.10 is ever, in any circumstances, compatible with scripture.

Posted by: Dave Monday 18 July 2011 - 11:23am
Nersen, On finances, think you are going beyond the position often taken by conservatives. You cannot tell the spiritual quality of a ministry by it's popularity or ability to attract funds. Tithing is often preached along with a prosperity gospel which produces large and well funded churches ( not in the CofE). You will have to look at their theology and exit surveys ( the experience of those who have left disillusioned) to judge them. In the right neighborhood, a good speaker, with good music, a sympathetic ear ... can build a "successful ministry" irrespective of theology. The churches that are in danger of closing in the next 20 years are small, aging congregations, with expensive buildings, lacking their own minister which do not have the resources to turn themselves around. These churches contain faithful godfearing people. Perhaps they do not have an evangelical clarity of doctrine but their love of Jesus is demonstrated by faithful attendance. These are the people the church is failing. This is not just a CofE problem. It exists also in say the URC, Methodist and Baptist churches. There is a strong case for the large prosperous church supporting it's neighbours. The conservative objection is to having their funds taken and used to support ministries they are opposed to. Conservatives at present see their funds better deployed in church plants, often directed at students and new housing areas with younger prosperous residents. I hope a will be proved wrong but this is the danger. The conservative refrain is "he who pays the piper calls the tune". Here we are up against the tension between the often failing bishops and the alleged "congregationalism" of the conservatives. We need to fin way to harness the natural generosity of the conservatives to support small and troubled congregations in a non-threatening way e.g. by showing some enthusiasm about lending their staff. It you think "the Great British public" is leaving revisionist churchs please provide evidence. I think people are doping out of church for far more mundane reasons they are just too busy/tired, everytime they move house there is a risk they will not find a suitable church. Where churches are growing it is because people are invited to come and they enjoy the services. Those who judge a church by it's morality or doctrine are a small minority and will find somewhere to go Dave

Posted by: Mark Bennet Sunday 17 July 2011 - 02:22pm
Nersen How does one discern the "mind of the communion" without meetings, discussions etc? Maybe in face to face meetings people will actually have to deal with issues rather than evading them. You seem to have decided that the mind is made up. The House of Bishops seems to think otherwise.

Posted by: David Baker Sunday 17 July 2011 - 12:57pm
Good article, Andrew. Thanks.

Posted by: Roger Hurding Sunday 17 July 2011 - 12:02pm
Andrew, many thanks for your paper on civil partnerships and same-sex relationships in the Church of England and for expressing the debate and potential dividing lines so clearly. With careful reading, I find the article, overall, encouraging. It is good to know that there is to be a 'wider look at the Church of England's approach to same-sex relationships more generally', which will produce a consultation document in 2013 and that the House of Bishops 'believes there is a theological task to be done to clarify further our understanding of the nature and status of these partnerships'. However, a potential sticking point, it seems to me, is the way that Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 is treated as an immoveable given, a sort of latter-day Mosaic commandment, set in stone. The forthcoming reiew is to be based on the restriction that it be 'consistent with' Lambeth 1.10. And so the 'wider look' already has its set limits. And isn't the disparity between the ground-rules for laity and clergy really a matter of 'moral rules'? To say it is juist about 'different levels of discipline within the church' feels like a fudge. Even so, the Bishop of Norwich's words that this debate 'is motivated by a desire to help shape the continuing debate constructively and not by any view about what the outcome should be' is encouraging. And Archbishop Rowan sounds the right note at General Synod in November 2010 when he urges, 'some thoughtful engagement that will help us understand how people who read the same Bible and share the same baptism can come to strongly diverse conclusions'. As Andrew puts it, there is the need to 'enter constructive theological dialogue with those seeking to revise Christian teaching in order both to correct and be corrected by those with whom we disagree'. Also, there is the requirement to listen to those Christians who are gay as to, 'how they understand their sexuality in the light of the gospel and the biblical witness and how they live it out in Christian discipleship.' In the spirit of the Bishop of Norwich's plea for a constructive debate, Archbishop Rowan's 'thoughtful engagement' and Andrew's call that we listen to the voice of gay Christians, a number of us are trying to do just these things. This is so, not least, in our 400-postings discussion on the thread, 'Presuppositions and Homosexuality'.

Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 16 July 2011 - 11:30pm
More Committees, talking endlessly, emotional arguments......whatever will come up, some want to justify sexual activity which the 'mind of the communion', in common with the church catholic, says is 'incompatible with scripture' ..... and never show the same is compatible with scripture. As for 'backbone of the CofE'.....let's move to every parish having to meet its own costs and we shall see the backbone and the subsidized dead wood.....because the great British public is voting with its feet and, as in the US, they're not taken in by revisionists.

Posted by: Dave Saturday 16 July 2011 - 11:34am
I don't see how the CofE can hope to get the specific application (to Bishops) right before it deals with the more general issues. If someone is morally unsuitable to be a bishop, it would be equally inappropriate to appoint him as a dean or archdeacon? The objection to false teaching or immoral living is far more significant than that to entering into a legal agreement which of itself is not contrary to scripture. In view of Colin Cowards recent revelations, the church is bolting the stable door long after the event. Dave

Posted by: Iconoclast Saturday 16 July 2011 - 10:56am
This kind of fudge by the CofE is downright weird, half-baked and not a little pharisaical. The Cof E has to decide whether it regards homosexual sexual relations in the form that the revisionist lobby have been demanding, as sinful and wrong or regard them as being holy and acceptable. I do not see that you can have some kind of 'half-way' house. At the moment the fudge pleases nobody.

Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Saturday 16 July 2011 - 01:02am
“A number of clergy have entered civil partnerships and it appears not all would be willing to give the assurances referred to in the statement and not all have been asked to give them by their bishops.” I should think not. I'm sure he wouldn't like it if his bishop asked him if he was having sex or not with his partner!! What Andrew fails to realise is that there are plenty of 'actively' gay clergy and readers in responsible relationships who are the backbone of the Church of England. It is most intrusive and demeaning of their relationships if asked if they are having sex by their bishop. And also puts people in an impossible position of keeping their integrity and loosing their vocation, or lying. It is most unhelpful, and I would say, downright evil to put clergy in this position. There are also gay bishops. What Andrew is advocating is that the present 'don't ask, don't tell' policy should continue and 'actively' gay bishops and other clergy should stay in the closet perpetuating the myth of a gay-free Church and society. Whilst condemning gay clergy to live a lie or renounce their vocation. This is the 21st century and its pathetic that the Church is still dragging its feet over this rather than leading the way like we have done on so many other issues. While his article offers a few glimmers of hope for gay Christians, he laments over fellow evangelicals who may want to “put their energy into more important issues.” I just wish that he and his fellow campaigners would put their energies into things that are by far more important: like living out the Gospel, feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked. True religion is about this, not trying to stop 5% of the population having sex.

Posted by: Mark Bennet Friday 15 July 2011 - 07:35pm
On first reading there is some helpful material in this article. I want to mention a distinction I met in a conference this week, which was made by Dr Helen Cameron, between what she called operant theology (what we actually do) and espoused theology (what we think we are doing). It seems to me that this is a particularly acute area for evangelicals taking a traditional position, but seeking to reach our to others in mission - and a focus for particular care and listening. In partcular we could ask whether homosexual people are to be partners in the process, or the objects of it (and to understand what that distinction might mean in terms of our theological anthropology, and especially what it would mean if we were to make other human beings the objects of our discussion). And also the distinction might help to explore the dynamics of the conversation "Why do you hate me?" "I don't, I love you." which expresses mutual incomprehension. An internal discourse which helps us to confirm for ourselves that "we love gay people" does not actually mean that the love we say we have is expressed in a manner which can be received. And that might be explored in considering what redemptive love consists of and the responsibility of the lover expressed by God in Christ, and therefore how God's love is expressed by God's people. The word "love" in the time-worn phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" can too easily be evacuated of content. Here "what we are seen to be doing" and "what we think we are doing" are acutely opposed to each other. Mark

Posted by: Jody Friday 15 July 2011 - 05:27pm
Dear Friends We have just published Andrew Goddard's 'Civil Partnerships and Same-Sex Relationships in the Church of England.' please use this thread for discussion. blessings, Jody

Add your comments on the Fulcrum Forum

LATEST
NEWS

Three thousand attend enthronement of Tanzanias new Primate

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby honoured at his fellow Primates installation. ACNS, 20 May 2013

20 May 2013

Why the Church of England is in decline

The church has failed to capitalise on its tally of advantages, and people are now cynical about the organisation. By Andrew Brown, Guardian Online. 19 May 2013

20 May 2013

Church of England issues briefing on Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill Commons Report and Third Reading Briefing. CofE Website, 19 May 2013

19 May 2013

FULCRUM
FORUM

A very brief note about "decline" in a living society posted by Bowman

In the newsfeed, a column by Andrew Brown idly speculates about the reasons for the "decline of" the Church of England. If this sort of argument is not merely hateful it is naive. There is "decline in" every great and enduring institution in a living society. People die, needs...

The Atonement: East and/or West? posted by Bowman

...Faith... unites the soul with Christ as a bride is united with her bridegroom. By this mystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh [Ephesians 5:31-32]. And if they are one flesh and there is between them a true marriage... it follows that everything they have they hol...

Contemplation: a Journey of Discovery? posted by Roger Hurding

The journey of contemplation needs, I suspect, to keep its feet on the ground. All temptation to assail holy ground over piously and unreflectingly should be resisted. The Book of Ecclesiastes (Koheleth) cuts us down to size. In Chapter 3:20-2 we read, 'All go to one place; al...