Excuse this cynical view. LLF is not about bishops asking for help. It is an exercise in delaying any meaningful change and will enable the ABC to maintain his two-faced strategy in this matter. With one face, he can wring his hands and say to those who are being discriminated against "I really feel your pain and we're really eager to resolve this." With the other face, he can say to Conservative Evangelicals (especially those from places like Africa and Australia) "We are resolved to maintain the traditional/biblical teachings of the Church." (By the way, this two-faced strategy seems to be common amongst Old Etonians, for some reason. It was followed by David Cameron and is very clearly shown in Boris Johnson. Say what you think the people in front of you want to hear and then, with a different audience, say something else. Just avoid saying anything too specific that you can be held accountable for.)
At some point, of course, this two-faced strategy of continuing delay and obfuscation will fail. But if ABC can prevent this from happening before the delayed Lambeth Conference in 2022, then he will be able to retire happily afterwards, with the proud claim that the Anglican Communion didn't split whilst he was ABC. It will be left to the next poor schmuck to bite the bullet on this, one way or another.
@wabale I'm curious: what about the LLF course did you find satisfying? And why do you think the bishops have asked for "help"? AIUI they have asked for views from CofE members, not help from a wider Christian community.
They are asking for help because they are split, which they openly admit to. They initially chose people to give their opinion, as the first part of the process of LLF. They have since invited comments on the LLF website. For such a rigidly hierarchical organisation, that is quite something. Presumably anjybody can have a go at them, but what you write won't necessarily be published! Then there's this:
2003
"Some issues in human sexuality - A guide to the debate
Church House Publishing
Forward The title of this study exactly defines its purpose. It is a guide to the theological debate on questions that have arisen in response to the 1991 House of Bishops report Issues in Human Sexuality. It works within the parameters of this earlier statement and does not seek to change the position of the House of Bishops from the one expressed there ..."
2020
"Living in love and faith - Christian teaching and learning about identity, sexuality,
relationships and marriage
Church House Publishing
‘Our prayer for the Church through this work is that collectively we
demonstrate the same love to one another that we have experienced
from God; the grace that includes everyone whom Jesus Christ is calling
to follow him; the holiness that changes the world and the unity that calls
others to faith in Christ.’
From the Foreword by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York 2020"
There is significant movement here, admittedly on a timescale that many find intolerable. As I have already indicated I believe this is essentially a cultural issue and always has been. I'm inclined to think the 'debate' began in earnest no earlier than Tertullian. John Boswell pointed out in 'Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homsexuality', first published in 1980, that the arguments condemning 'homosexuality' were initially not drawn from Scripture at all. The "Some issues ..." (2003) book slyly ignored this aspect of his research by pointing out that other scholars didn't agree with his ideas about there being male marriage services in the early Church - which is a different issue altogether.
With regard to your first question, there are many reasons why I think the course is good, so many in fact that I will actually need to sit down and think about it. But for openers, I would say part of my motivation for seeing it that way is that I have witnessed two complete collapses and splits in my own congregation, resulting in the departure many good friends, two vicars, and a churchwarden.
@Rufus T Firefly I understand your exasperation and the cynicism you express, but if this issue could have been solved by archiepiscopal fiat then the preceding Archbishop of Canterbury would have dealt with it.
From what I see around here there are many parishes which simply have chosen not to address the issue, arguably because the clergy are pusillanimous, and because many in the congregations take their moral compass from the likes of the Daily Mail.
If there is any way forward it can only be by getting parishes all across the country to listen to what is going on and to reflect on it together, and that is what LLF is attempting to do. I have no idea whether it will succeed, or even if it may be too flawed to have a chance.
I think you are unjust to the Archbishop to describe him as two-faced, or to believe that he will be satisfied with the outcome you describe.
Frankly, I think it is quite likely that the whole thing will blow up in his face, and I suspect he is aware of that risk. Whatever the outcome, one party or another will blame him for it, and splits of one kind or another are highly likely.
I am aware of clergy who are passionately of your view, and others who are passionately opposed to it. I can't see how there might be reconciliation, but I think there is value in seeking a discussion in the whole Church of England and trying to make everyone engage with the issues rather than simply being spectators of a duel between proponents of the opposing views.
On what ground could reconcilliation be built with justice? And as for it being unjust to call the Archbishop two-faced, his utterances vary so much that the only problem is understating the number of opposing views he has voiced in quick succession. There is neither justice nor integrity in that approach, even if it is done with a desire for reconcilliation. That model of reconciliation can only happen after justice has been achieved: those who keep the Coventry model of reconciliation ministry are apt to forget that it could only happen in Germany, which is their model, after the Nuremburg trials and denazification had both happened.
@wabale
With respect, I wasn't asking for a list of publications: I am well aware of those you quote and have done my best to plough through both. However, since you chose to cite the 2003 Issues as well as LLF I am curious that you ignore the missing link, which is The Pilling Report of 2013. That was the document that gave rise to the Facilitated Conversations of 2014/15 that were meant to push the CofE towards some decisions. In case it passed you by you can find some background here from the archbishops and discussed here in a pretty fair summary from The Guardian.
May I point you to the discussion of Pilling on the old Ship which you can access from Rufus T Firefly's post of 17th March on the Not Again thread?
The disgraceful way that the conclusions reached by the FCs were ignored by the House of Bishops made an already fractious situation worse. Many of us who took valuable time to attend the FCs were left feeling that it was time wasted because we hadn't come up with the "right" answer for the bishops.
The difference between Pilling and LLF is huge. One is even-handed, includes factual science-based information and gives a fair and non-judgmental voice to people whom the church had shown nothing but prejudice and uncharitableness for many, many years. The other is a heavily skewed attempt not just to preserve the status quo but to give justification to congregations that are unwelcoming, condemnatory, homophobic and downright unchristian. The omissions in the film 'stories' are startling. Where are the women who have found themselves married to men advised to 'marry themselves straight'? Where are the parents whose children committed suicide because of a church that told them their sexuality put them beyond the love of God? Where are the trans people who have been hounded out of churches?
You seem to think that in issuing LLF the bishops are genuinely asking for the views of ordinary people. But we've been here before! That was the whole point of the FCs which were ignored. We have seen just how much the bishops value the opinions of the laity on this and the answer is not at all.
With respect, the timescale of when you think the 'debate' began is irrelevant. The current issue is whether the CofE is going to be brave enough to face down it's fundamentalists who smile like assassins while threatening schism, or whether it's bishops are going to be true to caricature, just wring their hands and sit on the fence.
@wabale I'm curious: what about the LLF course did you find satisfying? And why do you think the bishops have asked for "help"? AIUI they have asked for views from CofE members, not help from a wider Christian community.
To answer the first part of your question how the LLF course 'satisfies' remains to be seen. In my own church it was an important move forward that our 'Traditionalist' vicar gave his blessing to a 6 session Bible Study on the clobber verses which I've already referred to in my brief review of the LLF course above. It would have been a satisfying result for me if everyone had come out of the course appreciating that there is more than one view on the subject, and as I have explained it actually did that and a good deal more. I understand that this is unsatisfactory to anyone who believes there is only one view, but I think the majority of people in the C of E, and certainly many in churches like mine, haven't given the issue much thought, are ignorant on the subject in any detail, and don't understand the seriousness of the impasse which you understand in much more detail.
@wabale
With respect, I wasn't asking for a list of publications:
And I didn't give you one. I gave you two contrasting official statements, from the 'forwards' of two books, written 7 years apart, which suggest a degree of progress (although, as you point out and I wasn't aware of, tainted by what happened in between). I'm sorry if you saw them as a 'list'.
The omissions in the film 'stories' are startling. Where are the women who have found themselves married to men advised to 'marry themselves straight'? Where are the parents whose children committed suicide because of a church that told them their sexuality put them beyond the love of God? Where are the trans people who have been hounded out of churches?
Actually I found all of the film 'stories' interesting, and one or two surprising. The three situations you describe as 'omissions' are indeed appalling, but they are not illustrative of normal church life, and hopefully are becoming more rare. Films of these kind of stories are indeed important (in Safeguarding training for example) but not, I think, directly relevant to what LLF films are there for, which I assume is to open up people's eyes as to some of the varieties of Christian lifestyles. But I understand why you might disagree.
You seem to think that in issuing LLF the bishops are genuinely asking for the views of ordinary people. But we've been here before! That was the whole point of the FCs which were ignored. We have seen just how much the bishops value the opinions of the laity on this and the answer is not at all.
Whatever the motives of the bishops, and whether or not they are genuine, the LLF is there for ordinary church members to engage with it, potentially on a wide scale across the country. I can assure you in a church anything like mine this will be totally new territory to explore, and in my view the more people understand these issues the better, whatever 'side' they take.
With respect, the timescale of when you think the 'debate' began is irrelevant. The current issue ...
Well, not entirely irrelevant. It is true that many problems are best unpicked by simply sticking to what's in front of us now. However, Steve Chalke, for example, made skilfull use of 1st century Roman History in criticising how Paul's description of immoral behaviour in his letter to the Romans has been misunderstood, and it made a big impact, especially I would imagine in evangelical circles. But, as I reported in an earlier post, the input of the History group into LLF seems to have been largely ignored by the co-ordinating group that wrote the book. They apparently thought the history of the Church's changing views on sexuality was irrelevant...
The three situations you describe as 'omissions' are indeed appalling, but they are not illustrative of normal church life
How do you know? Every single trans person I know (6) who was a church attender has been subjected to prurient questioning; all bar one have been asked to, at best, 'keep a low profile', 4 have eventually been 'advised' that they might be more comfortable elsewhere - in other words, asked to leave.
As for the treatment of people whose husband/wife comes out as gay, the hostility, blaming and aggression has been staggering. How would you feel if a member of the clergy announced in a group discussion that (a) it must somehow be your fault your husband decided to come-out; and (b) that her sin was proved by the fact she chose to divorce? It happened to a friend of mine in one of the FCs. Worse, most of the evangelicals in the group nodded along while this poisin was being spouted.
(That same priest insisted on referring to a trans woman as he/him and using the masculine version of her name.)
But the bishops don't want to know about this.
As for LLF illustrating 'varieties of Christian lifestyles', I don't think so.
Well, of course, I don't know. Neither I imagine would you know how many people might begin to change their minds through attending an LLF 5-session course. Many dioceses are taking LLF seriously, and I have already attended the inevitable zoom training session in ours.
But allow those of us who've jumped through these particular hoops many, many times to be more than a little sceptical about the whole businesx. And to point out the glaring omissions in the official material.
Frankly, the bishops are about as genuine as a 9 pound note on this one.
Has anyone provably changed their mind through this?
That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? Through this process alone, I don’t know. It might be too early to say. There have been stories for ages of people changing their minds (to a more affirming point of view) which usually come from discussions with LGBTQ people - it’s the old thing of listening to experiences and coming to a new understanding. Or to be blunt, seeing people as human.
Is the point of LLF to change anybody’s minds though?
Going back to @TheOrganist ’s point about the people left out from the videos. I haven’t watched them yet, but I can well believe that those left out people you mention are not that uncommon in church - or they just quietly think “sod this, I’m off” to themselves, and slip away. It’s probably what my kids will do.
Has anyone provably changed their mind through this?
Yes! Roughly a third of our rural congregation have become far more impatient with the central structures. 6 of them (average age c75) walked out of a bible study group (supposedly looking at marriage) hosted by a neighbouring parish that had been hijacked by ConEvos to preach the line of gays-out, divorcees-out.
Has anyone provably changed their mind through this?
Yes, changed my mind; but not through 'this'. I first met up close some gay men in 1967, when I was part of a team of ushers at a big London cinema. I was not aware that there was a significant change of the law in that year, more that there was a lot of very funny camp behaviour which brightened up the day. One of the guys at a different cinema I met at that time was trans, and very obviously used camp behaviour as a defence mechanism. From that period onwards, having met these folk, it would not have occured to me to question anyone's sexuality.
However, I was still a fairly fully-paid up Fundamentalist, who made a particular point of not reading any theology books. Round about the beginning of the century I was asked by the vicar to present the case to the PCC to join with other Evangelical Churches in signing a letter urging our bishop to stop making statements on homosexuality contrary to the Church's teaching. Many other PCCs across the diocese did the same thing. The next Visitation that I went to, attended by lots of vicars and churchwardens who had sent letters, began in a very tense atmosphere. However, the archdeacon simply urged us please to listen to the other side's point of view and keep an open mind.
It took time. I began to read a couple of threads on the Fulcrum Forum which existed at that time (a group I had hitherto regarded as 'unsound' for being too liberal!) Reading one contribution, I had a conversion experience, out of the blue. Someone had written something along the lines that sometimes “the plain reading of Scripture gets in the way of behaving like a decent human being”. Suddenly my ideas on official church teaching completely changed. But I couldn't have explained why.
It took a long time to find my proof text. It turned out I was looking in the wrong book. I'm an historian, not a theologian, and I still can't make up my mind by reading what different theologians say about the issue. I found a monograph by R.I.Moore 'The formation of a persecuting society' which to my mind showed that the condemnation of homosexuality arose from sociological factors, and the theology followed obediently in its wake.
The unfortunate thing, I'm afraid, is how long it takes to change one's mind. But it is interesting that within a few years of our Diocesan Evangelical group watching a presentation of statistics about sexuality, it stopped meeting, and as far as I know actually broke up. I am inclined to think a simple presentation of facts, which is what the LLF course is, will have a similar effect on a lot of churchgoers, enough to make a difference to what happens to the Church of England next.
This is an important question. HOW have people actually changed their views in this matter? In my experience, it's not been by attending study/discussion groups or watching "balanced" videos. It's been when people have had genuine and meaningful encounters with those who represent the "other"; those times when a gay couple move into a house down the street, or when a child comes out to their parents and introduces their partner, or when a work colleague reveals that they're trans.
But the comment above is correct - LLF isn't about change, rather than enabling both sides to have their voices heard, as if we didn't already know the "conservative" position. And it is telling that there is no clear path forward after LLF. Where does the C of E go from here?
And part of the problem here is that those aspiring to be bishops have to sign an agreement that they support the "Issues in Sexuality" line and commit to not speaking against it (anyone who has already spoken against it won't be considered anyway). So the House of Bishops is now made up of people who either support the status quo or who, whilst wanting change, regard being a bishop as more important than integrity.
To be honest I don't know how to engage with LLF. What I do know is that I want to be part of a church which is welcoming and inclusive, and where there is no space for bullying or discrimination of any kind. I think the Church of England has got to decide what sort of church it wants to be and it hasn't got time to waste. If it is to stand any chance of reclaiming the loyalty of the nation, it must take a very clear stance indicating that it is a welcoming and inclusive church for all.
I think the Church of England has got to decide what sort of church it wants to be and it hasn't got time to waste. If it is to stand any chance of reclaiming the loyalty of the nation, it must take a very clear stance indicating that it is a welcoming and inclusive church for all.
The problem is that I was saying exactly the same things over ten years ago. As far as I can see, the time for "reclaiming the loyalty of the nation" has been and gone.
I think the Church of England has got to decide what sort of church it wants to be and it hasn't got time to waste. If it is to stand any chance of reclaiming the loyalty of the nation, it must take a very clear stance indicating that it is a welcoming and inclusive church for all.
The problem is that I was saying exactly the same things over ten years ago. As far as I can see, the time for "reclaiming the loyalty of the nation" has been and gone.
Wrong way round. The nation needs to reclaim its loyalty of/in who Christ asks of us.
The CofE in its arrogance doesn't - perhaps cannot - see that this endless circle of prevarication is losing not only its own constituency but, because every church is perceived as being CofE, we are all suffering from their inability to make up their mind.
Who in their right mind would want to join a church that doesn't know what it believes and, on the few occasions that it does give a lead, is led by a group of self entitled and self important public school types?
Who in their right mind would want to join a church that doesn't know what it believes and, on the few occasions that it does give a lead, is led by a group of self entitled and self important public school types?
Totally agree on the second part. On the first - the heterogeneity of belief in the church doesn’t trouble me. It’s what you get for having a national church (for want of a better phrase) made up of local, parish churches. I’m sure I believe many different things to others in my congregation, and I certainly believe different things to the leadership, but as long as no one’s hurting anybody, I think that’s fine.
This is why the idea of leaving equal marriage to the conscience of the individual priest (as raised by Ricardus, I think, on the previous page) is such a good one. It might mean you have to travel a few parishes over if your local priest won’t marry you, but it has to be a step forward.
Can't say as I've noticed complete uniformity of belief and practice in non-Anglican churches here in the UK.
Where are these churches where everybody is on the same page thereby giving a clear message to the world?
I daresay some churches and groups / networks have a greater degree of homogeneity than the CofE but unless people assume - and I don't believe they do, by and large, that all churches here are CofE in all but name - then I think we have to factor in a whole range of issues to understand why everybody isn't beating a path to their door.
It's easy to 'blame' the CofE but I think it's far more complicated than that.
When I was growing up in South Wales the unchurched or unchapelled assumed that everyone in the non-conformist chapels were judgemental killjoys. That was far from the case, but that was the popular perception.
A generation or two earlier that may have been the case and there were vestiges of that still around. I well remember an elderly Baptist lady swelling with pride as she told us how they'd got the local corner shop to stop selling sweeties to the kids on Sundays.
In fact this is a large part of the problem with the church - it is treated like a brand, not a community. Every community is as different from the next as the people that make it up. The church isn't, or shouldn't be a sales-based organisation, so distinctiveness and consistency of brand, beyond a certain, very small number of essentials, should not be expected. This sort of franchisation of the church is what is killing it, as I see it. People want and need communities of authenticity; instead, they get impaired pastiches of the brand.
Maybe the toxicity of the CofE brand has something to do with the increasing profile of bishops and archbishops as people who get themselves quoted on partisan political issues?
Is the CofE any more or less 'toxic' as a brand now than it has ever been?
Bishops used to be far more involved in partisan politics in times past than they are now.
What makes a 'brand' toxic?
It what way is the CofE any more or less toxic than the Roman Catholics, say? Of course, the CofE's unique position as the national church (in England at least) puts it in a particularly problematic position, but I can't say that I've noticed any more toxicity about it now than at any other point in my memory.
Is the CofE any more or less 'toxic' as a brand now than it has ever been?
Bishops used to be far more involved in partisan politics in times past than they are now.
I agree. Runcie's confrontation with Thatcher over the Faith in the City report springs immediately to mind. I didn't agree too much with Runcie (& his own brand of elitism and promotion of favourites was in many ways the forerunner of what is happening now), but I admired the way he stood up to Thatcher and took a lot of flack for doing so.
I was thinking historically rather than in living memory, but yes, Runcie was an example of a 'turbulent priest'.
Laud got his head lopped off for backing the wrong horse politically.
Whatever the rights and wrongs there, I don't see contemporary Anglican bishops exercising inordinate powers.
I don't see them doing anything much.
Perhaps I'm missing something.
I'd imagine most people would see the CofE brand as irrelevant rather than toxic, I'm afraid - the same as any other Christian brand we might care to mention. Few people are that interested.
I'd imagine most people would see the CofE brand as irrelevant rather than toxic, I'm afraid - the same as any other Christian brand we might care to mention. Few people are that interested.
I think you're mostly right. An increasing number of people see all denominations/brands as irrelevant. But I would say that the C of E and the RCC both register in people's minds as toxic, when they actually think about them. Baptists and Methodists, for example, don't have the same reputation for abusive behavior.
I think the heart of the C of E's problem is hierarchy. The problem is complex and has developed over hundreds of years. It is typified in the fact that clergy wear the costume of 4th century Roman magistrates. And a former vicar once had the cheek to publically tell off Mrs Wabale by asking "When are you going to wear proper clothes?"! In the 20th century the word 'leadership' began to be applied to the clergy (oddly enough, for the first time.) However, Mark 10 v.43, where Jesus made clear his idea of leadership was totally different from 'the world's', continued to be ignored.
Other denominations are inevitably influenced by what the C of E does, and so is the general public who have been talked down to for years.
This discussion has typified what I am saying is the problem. Church is no longer seen as a community - everything is reduced to a hashtag. That might be a little melodramatic, but the underlying point still stands. Why should the hiearchy be the voice of the church - any church - to the outside world? Why isn't it the local community? Where does the problem lie - the church, the rest of the world, or both? I suspect the truth is the last of these - neither the church nor the world has the stamina or the courage to allow these relationships to be built. Instead, both follow the logic of the media industry, with one voice per social media account, allowing no space for subtletly or personal connection.
Rufus TF is probably right that Baptists and Methodists (if defined purely by their denomination) don’t have a reputation for abusive behaviour, but “born-again Christians” and “evangelicals” are a different matter. Everyone in the Baptist church where I grew up would have described themselves as evangelical and born again. As far as I know, nobody in my current or previous Anglican Church would do so.
Rufus TF is probably right that Baptists and Methodists (if defined purely by their denomination) don’t have a reputation for abusive behaviour, but “born-again Christians” and “evangelicals” are a different matter. Everyone in the Baptist church where I grew up would have described themselves as evangelical and born again. As far as I know, nobody in my current or previous Anglican Church would do so.
Few CofE clergy dress like 4th century Roman magistrates when they are out and about these days. The regalia tends only to appear for eucharistic services and even then depends on the level of churchmanship.
If anything, traditional Anglican clerical dress looks more 18th and 19th century than anything you'd have encountered in Rome or Byzantium.
Few clergy wear cassocks in public these days.
Have you seen Danish clergy? They wear 16th century style ruffs.
Now we're talking ...
How about Coptic clergy? They look like something out of the Arabian Nights.
The sad fact is, whatever they do and however they dress, they can't win.
If they go round in jeans and T-shirts they are accused of being scruffy, too casual or too self-consciously trying to get down with da kidz 'Disco Vicar' style.
If they wear cassocks, dog collars and all they are seen as aloof and remote.
On the issue as to whether 'evangelicals' and 'born-again Christians' are terms of opprobrium, sadly, yes, I think that is increasingly the case.
I remember hearing a sociologist who'd done a study of churches and levels of religious belief in Kendal in Cumbria, saying that whilst their churches were doing comparatively well numerically, the evangelicals had effectively shot themselves in the foot to an extent by convincing everyone that you had to be an extrovert to be a Christian, 'giving testimony' every 5 minutes or waving your arms around and speaking in tongues.
Anyone who wasn't interested in doing that was hardly likely to join in - nor engage with anything else formally religious either.
Comments
This.
And this.
They are asking for help because they are split, which they openly admit to. They initially chose people to give their opinion, as the first part of the process of LLF. They have since invited comments on the LLF website. For such a rigidly hierarchical organisation, that is quite something. Presumably anjybody can have a go at them, but what you write won't necessarily be published! Then there's this:
2003
"Some issues in human sexuality - A guide to the debate
Church House Publishing
Forward The title of this study exactly defines its purpose. It is a guide to the theological debate on questions that have arisen in response to the 1991 House of Bishops report Issues in Human Sexuality. It works within the parameters of this earlier statement and does not seek to change the position of the House of Bishops from the one expressed there ..."
2020
"Living in love and faith - Christian teaching and learning about identity, sexuality,
relationships and marriage
Church House Publishing
‘Our prayer for the Church through this work is that collectively we
demonstrate the same love to one another that we have experienced
from God; the grace that includes everyone whom Jesus Christ is calling
to follow him; the holiness that changes the world and the unity that calls
others to faith in Christ.’
From the Foreword by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York 2020"
There is significant movement here, admittedly on a timescale that many find intolerable. As I have already indicated I believe this is essentially a cultural issue and always has been. I'm inclined to think the 'debate' began in earnest no earlier than Tertullian. John Boswell pointed out in 'Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homsexuality', first published in 1980, that the arguments condemning 'homosexuality' were initially not drawn from Scripture at all. The "Some issues ..." (2003) book slyly ignored this aspect of his research by pointing out that other scholars didn't agree with his ideas about there being male marriage services in the early Church - which is a different issue altogether.
With regard to your first question, there are many reasons why I think the course is good, so many in fact that I will actually need to sit down and think about it. But for openers, I would say part of my motivation for seeing it that way is that I have witnessed two complete collapses and splits in my own congregation, resulting in the departure many good friends, two vicars, and a churchwarden.
From what I see around here there are many parishes which simply have chosen not to address the issue, arguably because the clergy are pusillanimous, and because many in the congregations take their moral compass from the likes of the Daily Mail.
If there is any way forward it can only be by getting parishes all across the country to listen to what is going on and to reflect on it together, and that is what LLF is attempting to do. I have no idea whether it will succeed, or even if it may be too flawed to have a chance.
I think you are unjust to the Archbishop to describe him as two-faced, or to believe that he will be satisfied with the outcome you describe.
Frankly, I think it is quite likely that the whole thing will blow up in his face, and I suspect he is aware of that risk. Whatever the outcome, one party or another will blame him for it, and splits of one kind or another are highly likely.
I am aware of clergy who are passionately of your view, and others who are passionately opposed to it. I can't see how there might be reconciliation, but I think there is value in seeking a discussion in the whole Church of England and trying to make everyone engage with the issues rather than simply being spectators of a duel between proponents of the opposing views.
With respect, I wasn't asking for a list of publications: I am well aware of those you quote and have done my best to plough through both. However, since you chose to cite the 2003 Issues as well as LLF I am curious that you ignore the missing link, which is The Pilling Report of 2013. That was the document that gave rise to the Facilitated Conversations of 2014/15 that were meant to push the CofE towards some decisions. In case it passed you by you can find some background here from the archbishops and discussed here in a pretty fair summary from The Guardian.
May I point you to the discussion of Pilling on the old Ship which you can access from Rufus T Firefly's post of 17th March on the Not Again thread?
The disgraceful way that the conclusions reached by the FCs were ignored by the House of Bishops made an already fractious situation worse. Many of us who took valuable time to attend the FCs were left feeling that it was time wasted because we hadn't come up with the "right" answer for the bishops.
The difference between Pilling and LLF is huge. One is even-handed, includes factual science-based information and gives a fair and non-judgmental voice to people whom the church had shown nothing but prejudice and uncharitableness for many, many years. The other is a heavily skewed attempt not just to preserve the status quo but to give justification to congregations that are unwelcoming, condemnatory, homophobic and downright unchristian. The omissions in the film 'stories' are startling. Where are the women who have found themselves married to men advised to 'marry themselves straight'? Where are the parents whose children committed suicide because of a church that told them their sexuality put them beyond the love of God? Where are the trans people who have been hounded out of churches?
You seem to think that in issuing LLF the bishops are genuinely asking for the views of ordinary people. But we've been here before! That was the whole point of the FCs which were ignored. We have seen just how much the bishops value the opinions of the laity on this and the answer is not at all.
With respect, the timescale of when you think the 'debate' began is irrelevant. The current issue is whether the CofE is going to be brave enough to face down it's fundamentalists who smile like assassins while threatening schism, or whether it's bishops are going to be true to caricature, just wring their hands and sit on the fence.
To answer the first part of your question how the LLF course 'satisfies' remains to be seen. In my own church it was an important move forward that our 'Traditionalist' vicar gave his blessing to a 6 session Bible Study on the clobber verses which I've already referred to in my brief review of the LLF course above. It would have been a satisfying result for me if everyone had come out of the course appreciating that there is more than one view on the subject, and as I have explained it actually did that and a good deal more. I understand that this is unsatisfactory to anyone who believes there is only one view, but I think the majority of people in the C of E, and certainly many in churches like mine, haven't given the issue much thought, are ignorant on the subject in any detail, and don't understand the seriousness of the impasse which you understand in much more detail.
Please read my comment above re the weight that should be attached to the bishops"asking for help.
I'd also be interested to know if your discussions included anything about the three categories of people excluded from the LLF 'life stories'.
And I didn't give you one. I gave you two contrasting official statements, from the 'forwards' of two books, written 7 years apart, which suggest a degree of progress (although, as you point out and I wasn't aware of, tainted by what happened in between). I'm sorry if you saw them as a 'list'.
Quite a lot passed me by, so I'm grateful for the reading list.
Actually I found all of the film 'stories' interesting, and one or two surprising. The three situations you describe as 'omissions' are indeed appalling, but they are not illustrative of normal church life, and hopefully are becoming more rare. Films of these kind of stories are indeed important (in Safeguarding training for example) but not, I think, directly relevant to what LLF films are there for, which I assume is to open up people's eyes as to some of the varieties of Christian lifestyles. But I understand why you might disagree.
Whatever the motives of the bishops, and whether or not they are genuine, the LLF is there for ordinary church members to engage with it, potentially on a wide scale across the country. I can assure you in a church anything like mine this will be totally new territory to explore, and in my view the more people understand these issues the better, whatever 'side' they take.
Well, not entirely irrelevant. It is true that many problems are best unpicked by simply sticking to what's in front of us now. However, Steve Chalke, for example, made skilfull use of 1st century Roman History in criticising how Paul's description of immoral behaviour in his letter to the Romans has been misunderstood, and it made a big impact, especially I would imagine in evangelical circles. But, as I reported in an earlier post, the input of the History group into LLF seems to have been largely ignored by the co-ordinating group that wrote the book. They apparently thought the history of the Church's changing views on sexuality was irrelevant...
As for the treatment of people whose husband/wife comes out as gay, the hostility, blaming and aggression has been staggering. How would you feel if a member of the clergy announced in a group discussion that (a) it must somehow be your fault your husband decided to come-out; and (b) that her sin was proved by the fact she chose to divorce? It happened to a friend of mine in one of the FCs. Worse, most of the evangelicals in the group nodded along while this poisin was being spouted.
(That same priest insisted on referring to a trans woman as he/him and using the masculine version of her name.)
But the bishops don't want to know about this.
As for LLF illustrating 'varieties of Christian lifestyles', I don't think so.
But allow those of us who've jumped through these particular hoops many, many times to be more than a little sceptical about the whole businesx. And to point out the glaring omissions in the official material.
Frankly, the bishops are about as genuine as a 9 pound note on this one.
That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? Through this process alone, I don’t know. It might be too early to say. There have been stories for ages of people changing their minds (to a more affirming point of view) which usually come from discussions with LGBTQ people - it’s the old thing of listening to experiences and coming to a new understanding. Or to be blunt, seeing people as human.
Is the point of LLF to change anybody’s minds though?
Going back to @TheOrganist ’s point about the people left out from the videos. I haven’t watched them yet, but I can well believe that those left out people you mention are not that uncommon in church - or they just quietly think “sod this, I’m off” to themselves, and slip away. It’s probably what my kids will do.
Yes! Roughly a third of our rural congregation have become far more impatient with the central structures. 6 of them (average age c75) walked out of a bible study group (supposedly looking at marriage) hosted by a neighbouring parish that had been hijacked by ConEvos to preach the line of gays-out, divorcees-out.
However, I was still a fairly fully-paid up Fundamentalist, who made a particular point of not reading any theology books. Round about the beginning of the century I was asked by the vicar to present the case to the PCC to join with other Evangelical Churches in signing a letter urging our bishop to stop making statements on homosexuality contrary to the Church's teaching. Many other PCCs across the diocese did the same thing. The next Visitation that I went to, attended by lots of vicars and churchwardens who had sent letters, began in a very tense atmosphere. However, the archdeacon simply urged us please to listen to the other side's point of view and keep an open mind.
It took time. I began to read a couple of threads on the Fulcrum Forum which existed at that time (a group I had hitherto regarded as 'unsound' for being too liberal!) Reading one contribution, I had a conversion experience, out of the blue. Someone had written something along the lines that sometimes “the plain reading of Scripture gets in the way of behaving like a decent human being”. Suddenly my ideas on official church teaching completely changed. But I couldn't have explained why.
It took a long time to find my proof text. It turned out I was looking in the wrong book. I'm an historian, not a theologian, and I still can't make up my mind by reading what different theologians say about the issue. I found a monograph by R.I.Moore 'The formation of a persecuting society' which to my mind showed that the condemnation of homosexuality arose from sociological factors, and the theology followed obediently in its wake.
The unfortunate thing, I'm afraid, is how long it takes to change one's mind. But it is interesting that within a few years of our Diocesan Evangelical group watching a presentation of statistics about sexuality, it stopped meeting, and as far as I know actually broke up. I am inclined to think a simple presentation of facts, which is what the LLF course is, will have a similar effect on a lot of churchgoers, enough to make a difference to what happens to the Church of England next.
But the comment above is correct - LLF isn't about change, rather than enabling both sides to have their voices heard, as if we didn't already know the "conservative" position. And it is telling that there is no clear path forward after LLF. Where does the C of E go from here?
And part of the problem here is that those aspiring to be bishops have to sign an agreement that they support the "Issues in Sexuality" line and commit to not speaking against it (anyone who has already spoken against it won't be considered anyway). So the House of Bishops is now made up of people who either support the status quo or who, whilst wanting change, regard being a bishop as more important than integrity.
The problem is that I was saying exactly the same things over ten years ago. As far as I can see, the time for "reclaiming the loyalty of the nation" has been and gone.
Wrong way round. The nation needs to reclaim its loyalty of/in who Christ asks of us.
The CofE in its arrogance doesn't - perhaps cannot - see that this endless circle of prevarication is losing not only its own constituency but, because every church is perceived as being CofE, we are all suffering from their inability to make up their mind.
Who in their right mind would want to join a church that doesn't know what it believes and, on the few occasions that it does give a lead, is led by a group of self entitled and self important public school types?
Totally agree on the second part. On the first - the heterogeneity of belief in the church doesn’t trouble me. It’s what you get for having a national church (for want of a better phrase) made up of local, parish churches. I’m sure I believe many different things to others in my congregation, and I certainly believe different things to the leadership, but as long as no one’s hurting anybody, I think that’s fine.
This is why the idea of leaving equal marriage to the conscience of the individual priest (as raised by Ricardus, I think, on the previous page) is such a good one. It might mean you have to travel a few parishes over if your local priest won’t marry you, but it has to be a step forward.
Where are these churches where everybody is on the same page thereby giving a clear message to the world?
I daresay some churches and groups / networks have a greater degree of homogeneity than the CofE but unless people assume - and I don't believe they do, by and large, that all churches here are CofE in all but name - then I think we have to factor in a whole range of issues to understand why everybody isn't beating a path to their door.
It's easy to 'blame' the CofE but I think it's far more complicated than that.
When I was growing up in South Wales the unchurched or unchapelled assumed that everyone in the non-conformist chapels were judgemental killjoys. That was far from the case, but that was the popular perception.
A generation or two earlier that may have been the case and there were vestiges of that still around. I well remember an elderly Baptist lady swelling with pride as she told us how they'd got the local corner shop to stop selling sweeties to the kids on Sundays.
Was the CinW to blame for that?
I find that sort of expectation totalitarian and nonsensical.
Bishops used to be far more involved in partisan politics in times past than they are now.
What makes a 'brand' toxic?
It what way is the CofE any more or less toxic than the Roman Catholics, say? Of course, the CofE's unique position as the national church (in England at least) puts it in a particularly problematic position, but I can't say that I've noticed any more toxicity about it now than at any other point in my memory.
I agree. Runcie's confrontation with Thatcher over the Faith in the City report springs immediately to mind. I didn't agree too much with Runcie (& his own brand of elitism and promotion of favourites was in many ways the forerunner of what is happening now), but I admired the way he stood up to Thatcher and took a lot of flack for doing so.
Laud got his head lopped off for backing the wrong horse politically.
Whatever the rights and wrongs there, I don't see contemporary Anglican bishops exercising inordinate powers.
I don't see them doing anything much.
Perhaps I'm missing something.
I'd imagine most people would see the CofE brand as irrelevant rather than toxic, I'm afraid - the same as any other Christian brand we might care to mention. Few people are that interested.
I think you're mostly right. An increasing number of people see all denominations/brands as irrelevant. But I would say that the C of E and the RCC both register in people's minds as toxic, when they actually think about them. Baptists and Methodists, for example, don't have the same reputation for abusive behavior.
Other denominations are inevitably influenced by what the C of E does, and so is the general public who have been talked down to for years.
Come to Sydney😬😈
If anything, traditional Anglican clerical dress looks more 18th and 19th century than anything you'd have encountered in Rome or Byzantium.
Few clergy wear cassocks in public these days.
Have you seen Danish clergy? They wear 16th century style ruffs.
Now we're talking ...
How about Coptic clergy? They look like something out of the Arabian Nights.
The sad fact is, whatever they do and however they dress, they can't win.
If they go round in jeans and T-shirts they are accused of being scruffy, too casual or too self-consciously trying to get down with da kidz 'Disco Vicar' style.
If they wear cassocks, dog collars and all they are seen as aloof and remote.
On the issue as to whether 'evangelicals' and 'born-again Christians' are terms of opprobrium, sadly, yes, I think that is increasingly the case.
I remember hearing a sociologist who'd done a study of churches and levels of religious belief in Kendal in Cumbria, saying that whilst their churches were doing comparatively well numerically, the evangelicals had effectively shot themselves in the foot to an extent by convincing everyone that you had to be an extrovert to be a Christian, 'giving testimony' every 5 minutes or waving your arms around and speaking in tongues.
Anyone who wasn't interested in doing that was hardly likely to join in - nor engage with anything else formally religious either.