LLF - Living in Love and Faith

Any views on the report and/or the debate that has resulted?
«1

Comments

  • Same old exercise in can-kicking, same old awful behaviour from homophobes. Time for the CofE's Bishops to beg, borrow or steal a spine from somewhere.
  • Our PP has decreed that he doesn't think this is the time for us to be thinking about "that sort of thing 👿 .
  • "Now is not the time" said everyone who loves the status quo, always.
  • Same old exercise in can-kicking, same old awful behaviour from homophobes. Time for the CofE's Bishops to beg, borrow or steal a spine from somewhere.

    Amen. Lord have mercy on those of us on the sharp end of bigotry.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    The report is a fairly substantial tome (£20 and 482 pages) which I’ve not yet had time to look at (my wife is working her way through a copy at the moment).
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    “Now is not the time”, is what a large number of parish priests are saying.

    Before swiftly moving on to non parish priest duties.
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    “Now is not the time”, is what a large number of parish priests are saying.

    Before swiftly moving on to non parish priest duties.

    The only type our PP knows - but never swiftly.

    This Sunday we are having a Christingle service ... without children!
  • Any views on the report and/or the debate that has resulted?
    Can those of us outside the UK get links and/or a brief description of the report and the resulting debate? I can make a few guesses based on the comments, but those guesses may be off.

  • Andrew Brown in last week's 'Church Times' writes that 'LLF' should actually be called, 'Feuding in Hate and Suspicion' . . . what makes the thing so frustrating is the need to pretend that any of it matters. The conservatives will never give up their threats to walk out so long as there is anything to walk out of'. . . . Fortunately the outside world has taken very little notice'.



  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Any views on the report and/or the debate that has resulted?
    Can those of us outside the UK get links and/or a brief description of the report and the resulting debate? I can make a few guesses based on the comments, but those guesses may be off.

    Can I just repeat what Nick Tamen said?
  • LuciaLucia Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    https://www.churchofengland.org/resources/living-love-and-faith/about-living-love-and-faith
    I don't know much about the report but this page tells about the resources for churches associated with it. I thought some of the videos of people's personal stories were good.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    There’s an introductory page on the Church of England website, and a pdf of the full document can be downloaded from this page.

    AIUI there has been no debate on this yet. The point of the resources is to enable and promote discussion throughout the CofE over the next year with debate and decisions in General Synod in 2022
  • I think the Church wants to make it profit from the book, so I assume it's not free. Out of stock at Amazon but I think it's about £19.

    I read a review of it which looks very thoughtful, but rather critical, to say the least. I may get a copy but I'm not encouraged. Review here.
  • Thanks @Lucia and @BroJames.

  • Anteater wrote: »
    I think the Church wants to make it profit from the book, so I assume it's not free. Out of stock at Amazon but I think it's about £19.

    I read a review of it which looks very thoughtful, but rather critical, to say the least. I may get a copy but I'm not encouraged. Review here.

    That's not a review of the book, it's a two year old critique of the process (nothing wrong with that but it's not about the recently published book).
  • Oops. Sorry I though it was.
  • Maaybe the book turned out better than he had hoped.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    If you don’t want to pay out for it, it is available free as a pdf - see my link above.
  • Thanks Bro James. I downloaded it.
    If you like documents that get to the point, this is not for you. And this means me. I really would like to be able to express an opinion, but I can't do that until I've waded through 480 pages of pretty diffuse text. Total of 170,000 words. About the same size as Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck.

    So for those in favour, this is all about putting the specific issues that are causing problems into a wider context, so basically it covered a huge range of general Church teaching, from a moderate liberal standpoint. There's lots of stories of people. I think the aim is partly to show that the issue of human sexuality is quite small compared with the whole range of Church teaching, and a lot of it (like the entire history of salvation) gets included.

    Maybe that's best because they are trying to bridge between incompatible approaches of how to work towards truth. But it makes it a pretty indigestible read. Do you get a prize for reading it? you'd have to have a quiz to catch out the cheats.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Same old exercise in can-kicking, same old awful behaviour from homophobes. Time for the CofE's Bishops to beg, borrow or steal a spine from somewhere.

    And some of the evangelicals attempted to run around it in any case by putting out their own video response ahead of the document being published.

    (Apparently "Me too" was all down to sexual liberation, and 'creation restored' is narrowly framed in sexual terms. So that's all okay then).
  • I've been dipping into it.

    I think the intention is to help people see where 'the other side' is coming from, rather than to recommend any specific course of action. So if you are looking for a point in that sense, then it doesn't have one.

    I think the basic idea is laudable. The problems to me are:

    1. People who don't want to know where the other side is coming from won't read the materials, i.e., the audience will be mostly made up of people who are already open-minded;
    2. If the bishops really believe that different views on The Issue are equally valid, then the logical endpoint is that celebrating gay marriages should be up to the conscience of the individual minister, and the endless succession of Reports and Structured Conversations and Discernment is just a desperate attempt to obscure this obvious conclusion behind mountains of waffle.
  • wabalewabale Shipmate


    The LLF Process and Book have already been discussed or mentioned. But there are other aspects to LLF, as well as other resources.

    One of the resources is 'The Course - a 5-session course for groups', which is a booklet. The idea is that it will be used by groups so church members can learn more about the issues, as a part of the LLF process.

    Our own Church, which is Conservative Evangelical, but 'tempered' by being in a rural setting, had a Bible Study on homosexuality a couple of years ago, with the permission of the vicar, who himself holds traditional views on the subject. The course was a 6-session study of the clobber verses from the different points of view of 'Traditionalists' and 'Revisionists'. The group which did it was a small one that included a church warden and an evangelism enabler. I was actually expecting a difficult time in getting folk to give the Revisionist point of view a fair hearing. On the contrary, it turned out one person in the group had two people in her family who were gay, and the group was extremely and pleasantly surprised by Ezekiel's take on the city of Sodom. But my overwhelming impression was that people were delighted to have the opportunity to discuss an issue that had hitherto been cloaked in silence, and had been given permission as it were to have their say.

    The LLF course is very good. It works as a words-based course. But roughly the same explanatary text, Bible text, Prayers, and 'life stories' can be seen on the video which accompanies each session. The 'story films' are brilliant in my opinion, doing the same job in a way as the lady in our Bible Study group who shared the stories of her family members. They prevent the whole thing from becoming just an academic exercise. The whole course can be done by video and discussion without a booklet in sight. And prayer: there is a spirituality in the sessions which could raise them, in my opinion, to a much more engaging level than a formal Bible Study or teaching. Finessed into each of the 5 sessions are a series of 'Pastoral Principles' - detailed principles that remind you at the beginning of each session how to be kind to each other.
  • Having been asked by my fellow PCC members to have a look at the LLF stuff I have ploughed through the preview material on the LLF hub.

    My personal view? It is a huge ask for parishes to ask people to attend for six 90 minute sessions to go through the process - and that is assuming that the timings they envisage are reasonable, which I don't think they are.

    I think quite a lot of it is skewed towards one standpoint: I really can't see many minds being opened up to the possibility of change/ moderation of view.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    One workday is a heck of a lot of time for low level multirole volunteers (i.e all of many parishes)!
  • My personal view? It is a huge ask for parishes to ask people to attend for six 90 minute sessions to go through the process - and that is assuming that the timings they envisage are reasonable, which I don't think they are
    .

    Gosh, that is a lot.
    I’m not sure who would want to go to such sessions. My eternal frustration with this is that the CofE is trying to “both sides” (it’s a new verb, I just invented it) a subject which is about people’s humanity, and in which the harm done in one direction is significantly greater than the harm which could be done in the other direction.

    With apologies to James Baldwin for this straight white lady stealing his quote, the process reminds me of his famous saying that we can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of humanity and right to exist.

    The harm done to LGBTI people during the LLF process has been noted elsewhere - Rev Christina Beardsley, and Sara Gillingham (afaik the only transgender and intersex people involved) both had to leave due to the toll taken on them. They’re just the ones I remember hearing about, there may have been others.

    I’m straight myself with 2 queer teenagers, I can’t think why they would put themselves through a course like this.

    As someone less likely to be harmed by it, I had been not keen, but willing to engage, until the “Beautiful Story” video chrisstiles mentions above was published. It’s a shot across the bows, threatening spilts and the setting up separate provinces for “traditionalists”, it features 2 people who were involved in the LLF process, and was clearly filmed over the summer. I find it very difficult to believe those people are seriously committed to listening to people from the other side.

    There seems to be little or no appetite to engage with the materials from our clergy - it’s been referred to as “something we have to do”. More so at deanery level. We’ll see.

    Oh, and everything Ricardus says.
  • wabalewabale Shipmate
    Prof Helen King and the Revd Canon Dr Judith Maltby were two members of the LLF History Sub Group. It was one of four sub groups that provided materials to the central group that produced the LLF book.

    But what happened to their contribution I find disturbing. Basically you will find bits of History in the book, but nothing that brings a direct light on the Church's difficulties with its teaching on homosexuality.

    How this came about is partly explained by Professor King's reaction to the 'Pastoral Statement' statement the bishops issued in relation to civil marriage, while the LLF book was still being written. She says: " 'We noted that the Statement presents the Church’s past as static, rather than dynamic, and uses phrases like ‘It has always been the position of the Church of England’ ".

    This rang a bell with me. Many books about the history of the Church in general that I have read often begin, when they get to the subject, by saying that the Church's view of homosexuality has been consistent throughout its history. What is peculiar about this statement is that it is untrue. It seems to be a clear instance of 'Argument weak here, shout'. I am sad that the theologians (I'm guessing here) didn't listen to Professor King and Dr Maltby. I actually think a close look at the early church changes everything.

    My own guess is that it was the early church, influenced perhaps by Jewish Christianity, that made the fatal error of declaring 'homosexual behaviour' a sin. Ironically, I think it may have been that wider society was actually pushing the Church in this direction, until what had been regarded as a personal sin came to be regarded by Constantine as a threat to the fabric of the nation.
  • While you may be right, what actual proof do you have for your guess?
  • wabalewabale Shipmate
    I'm assuming you're referring to my guesses in the last paragraph. Condemnation of homosexuality among many Jewish communities was very strong by the 1st Century, partly it would seem in order to distinguish themselves from gentiles. Philo in Alexandria, for example, was I believe the first commentator to use Sodom as the prime example of 'homosexual behaviour', which certainly took the whole thing up a notch. The early church was Jewish, so it would be natural for Jewish Christians to regard 'homosexual behaviour' as sin. Sexual purity quickly became a major concern of Christian teaching, and became extreme, with pedophilia (rightly) becoming a particular target. Roman law and custom also gave very limited scope for marriage between men to be recognised. My own look at early church documents, hampered by being just in English translation, didn't actually come up with much condemnation of homosexuality (just pedophilia and trafficking) but then perhaps it was regarded as so wicked as not to be spoken about. With regard to wider society being an influence on tighter rules (about pretty well everything) David F Greenberg, in 'The construction of homosexuality', argued that if you looked at sociological structures of the Roman Empire at this time you could be quite sure it was a society about to criminalise homosexuality! Greenberg is an anthropologist. I have not yet come across an historian who has written on this point.
  • @chrisstiles Thanks for the link to the EA video. Some very disturbing things in it - for example Ian Paul ".. some what I might call liberal scholars, believe that the traditional teaching of the church is wrong ...". Simplistic and totally without context. The term "liberal" is definitely pejorative throughout.

    I find it shocking that a bishop openly discusses the possibility of Evangelicals deciding to quit the CofE with implicit approval (Blackburn). And the finishing rallying cry for Evangelicals to organise themselves for the 2021 GS elections I think bodes ill.
  • Jemima the 9thJemima the 9th Shipmate
    edited March 21
    Slight pedantry alert; the video isn’t by the EA, but the Church of England Evangelical Council. A couple of years ago, they amended their statement of faith to include (alongside their belief in the life, death, resurrection of Jesus) the idea that marriage is between one man and one one woman. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/28-june/news/uk/proposal-from-evangelical-group-of-the-general-synod-is-criticised They really seem to care about it quite a lot. AIUI, the change left accepting evangelicals without a grouping on GS. I think all this is correct - I’m not a GS member, just an interested bystander.

    I’d agree that the video content is disturbing though!

    They have been organising to get “their people” on GS for a while now.
  • I realise this is a bit "poor me", but liberals in the Church of England are hung out to dry routinely. We don't help the loud, cymbal-bashing recruitment into bastions of tradtional belief, and no-one cares about the points made above, nor the millions of people who hold Christianity in contempt because of their hatred.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited March 21
    I followed that link and arrived at a discussion on racial diversity with references to the whole of humankind, whatever tribe or language, reflecting God's own Triune diversity. I then found the link to the LGBTetc discussion, and skimmed through to the conclusion. So I've missed some of the comments referred to above. I may go back to listen properly.
    But, having come to the matter that way, it strikes me that the same arguments, to tradition, to what Christ represented (and he didn't teach about slavery, either) could have been raised, and probably were, to the admission of people of other than European cultures into Christianity at all, and then into positions of authority within churches. Which made the ancestry of some of those arguing from tradition for the one man, one woman centrality of belief rather interesting. If those who did argue for the withholding of the knowledge of Christ from slaves (despite Galatians) had had their way, and overthrown the liberals, some of those arguing for the enforced celibacy of those who love outside the prescribed bounds wouldn't be there to make any argument at all.
    Surely it cannot be a central creed of faith in God that something which was never preached in the Gospel by Christ is up there with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as vital? More vital, for example, than caring for the sick, and the poor, and all that trivial stuff in Matthew?
  • DavidDavid Shipmate
    Gosh, that is a lot.
    I’m not sure who would want to go to such sessions. My eternal frustration with this is that the CofE is trying to “both sides” (it’s a new verb, I just invented it) a subject which is about people’s humanity, and in which the harm done in one direction is significantly greater than the harm which could be done in the other direction.

    This is the really sad thing, isn’t it. All this damage being done to people for what? The average Sunday attendance in the Church of England has fallen steadily over the years to the point where in 2019 it was 690,000. Out of a population total for England of 56,000,000. Which means that 1.23 per cent of the population go to the Church of England on a Sunday.

    While Church of England attendance has plummeted over the last thirty years, a British Social Attitudes Survey published in 2019 showed that acceptance of same sex relationships among the British population is at 68 per cent. In 1987, it was 10 per cent.

    The Church of England is an irrelevance in today's world, yet continues to damage the lives and wellbeing of thousands of its ever-dwindling membership.

    So sad.
  • David wrote: »
    The Church of England is an irrelevance in today's world, yet continues to damage the lives and wellbeing of thousands of its ever-dwindling membership.
    .

    Absolutely. And as I read elsewhere in someone’s comments on LLF (wish I could remember where) many people now reject the church’s teaching, not because they find it too hard (as is often said) but because they find it immoral.
  • Including many of its members. As with the RCC and condom use, especially in Africa.
  • The first thought that occurred to me was, if you think going through the LLF course is onerous, try living with the managed hatred enshrined in current policy. That is the millstone the church feels itself entitled to place around the neck of its LGBT members at present, and we are tired of it and contest the right of the institution to continue in this fashion.
  • David wrote: »
    While Church of England attendance has plummeted over the last thirty years, a British Social Attitudes Survey published in 2019 showed that acceptance of same sex relationships among the British population is at 68 per cent. In 1987, it was 10 per cent.

    The Church of England is an irrelevance in today's world, yet continues to damage the lives and wellbeing of thousands of its ever-dwindling membership.

    I tried to say this at one the Facilitated Conversations (FC) I went to in 2014 and was howled down as being "defeatest" - so who knew it was a war?

    The argument about damaging the wellbeing of people who are, or may be, LGBTQI+ was dismissed as irrelevant because (and I've never forgotten these words) They've deliberately chosen to put themselves beyond God's love by refusing to repent.

    What I heard at the FC shocked me to the core, and I was no innocent about the almost boundless insensitivity of some clergy. For only the second time in my adult life (the first time was in an argument with my papa) I came within a hair's breadth of punching a priest.

    The terminal ennui of many MOR churches and their refusal to engage with the evos on these issues plays right unto their hands because they wilfully construe silence as being "un-christian".

    I would urge anyone who feels like wzlking away from engaging on this to think again: this isn't something just for LGBTQI+ Christians, the bigotry must be challenged by all of us.

  • It's not just bigotry, it's terrible theology of sexuality, of which LGBT people are the scapegoats and first victims, but by no means the only victims.
  • It's not just bigotry, it's terrible theology of sexuality, of which LGBT people are the scapegoats and first victims, but by no means the only victims.

    Not sure they're even the first - women are the primary victims of the sexual purity culture that hovers miasmatically around conservative evangelicalism.
  • DavidDavid Shipmate
    No other public or corporate institution would want, or be allowed, to live down to the judgmental, self-righteous, and loveless standards of organised religion — the home of heartless homophobes and last bastion of bigotry.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited March 21
    It's not just bigotry, it's terrible theology of sexuality, of which LGBT people are the scapegoats and first victims, but by no means the only victims.

    Not sure they're even the first - women are the primary victims of the sexual purity culture that hovers miasmatically around conservative evangelicalism.

    And what are lesbians? And whatever those of other genders are that aren't cis-gendered men, they don't have the power of that group either.

    What we are dealing with here is institutional privilege. It is introjected by those who wish to exercise it against others. Actually it can be done by anyone - the reality of internalised homophobia among gay male priests is proof that a person's identity can be subsumed into that of an institution to the point of putting that person at war with themselves.

    The call is on the church to forswear this privilege, whoever it is used against - women, people of other ethnicities, LGBT people, and those who belong in more than one of these groups.

    That purity culture, in different guises, hovers around all traditions. In catholic-minded traditions, it is focussed on the figure of the Mother of God.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 21
    David wrote: »
    The Church of England is an irrelevance in today's world, yet continues to damage the lives and wellbeing of thousands of its ever-dwindling membership.
    .

    Absolutely. And as I read elsewhere in someone’s comments on LLF (wish I could remember where) many people now reject the church’s teaching, not because they find it too hard (as is often said) but because they find it immoral.

    This. I am a liberal not because I find conservative theology hard and challenging, but because I find it abhorrent.

    This goes a long way beyond sexuality and gender.
  • The terminal ennui of many MOR churches and their refusal to engage with the evos on these issues plays right unto their hands because they wilfully construe silence as being "un-christian".

    There's a lot of cant surrounding the GS, and if Evangelicals want to organise they'll only be doing what a bunch of different factions have done over the years.

    That said - and I say this as an Evangelical - I think the current course being set has no chance of success. This isn't America, and even American Evangelicalism is no longer as monolithic on these issues as it once was at a practical level.

    If the larger evangelical churches started preaching on these issues every other Sunday, they'd soon find a good percentage of their congregation missing. Similarly, talk of splitting from the church misunderstands the social base of their senior leadership -- bluntly they'd kill their pipeline without the social cachet of being part of the 'Established Church'.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 21
    David wrote: »
    No other public or corporate institution would want, or be allowed, to live down to the judgmental, self-righteous, and loveless standards of organised religion — the home of heartless homophobes and last bastion of bigotry.

    This.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    David wrote: »
    The Church of England is an irrelevance in today's world, yet continues to damage the lives and wellbeing of thousands of its ever-dwindling membership.
    .

    Absolutely. And as I read elsewhere in someone’s comments on LLF (wish I could remember where) many people now reject the church’s teaching, not because they find it too hard (as is often said) but because they find it immoral.

    This. I am a liberal not because I find conservative theology hard and challenging, but because I find it abhorrent.

    This goes a long way beyond sexuality and gender.

    And this.

    I'm in the mental/spiritual process of giving up on the C of E. My licence as a Reader expires this year, when I reach the age of 70, but they may offer me Permission to Officiate.

    I shall probably refuse, as I no longer want to be part of such a reactionary, immoral (yes!), and abhorrent *culture*.
  • David wrote: »
    No other public or corporate institution would want, or be allowed, to live down to the judgmental, self-righteous, and loveless standards of organised religion — the home of heartless homophobes and last bastion of bigotry.

    This.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    David wrote: »
    The Church of England is an irrelevance in today's world, yet continues to damage the lives and wellbeing of thousands of its ever-dwindling membership.
    .

    Absolutely. And as I read elsewhere in someone’s comments on LLF (wish I could remember where) many people now reject the church’s teaching, not because they find it too hard (as is often said) but because they find it immoral.

    This. I am a liberal not because I find conservative theology hard and challenging, but because I find it abhorrent.

    This goes a long way beyond sexuality and gender.

    And this.

    I'm in the mental/spiritual process of giving up on the C of E. My licence as a Reader expires this year, when I reach the age of 70, but they may offer me Permission to Officiate.

    I shall probably refuse, as I no longer want to be part of such a reactionary, immoral (yes!), and abhorrent *culture*.

    Moi, aussi!

    Since leaving the UK 7 years ago, a number of people have asked me if I would ever go back. The continual homophobic nature of much of the C of E is one key reason why I wouldn't. If, when I retire, we move back to be nearer family, I would be very unlikely to apply for PTO in the C of E. I have absolutely no confidence that any of the current non-entities in the House of Bishops could provide the leadership to generate the fundamental changes required in the C of E. All bishops are now "pre-selected" to weed out anyone who might have a dissenting view or (God forbid!) an original thought.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 21
    David wrote: »
    No other public or corporate institution would want, or be allowed, to live down to the judgmental, self-righteous, and loveless standards of organised religion — the home of heartless homophobes and last bastion of bigotry.

    This.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    David wrote: »
    The Church of England is an irrelevance in today's world, yet continues to damage the lives and wellbeing of thousands of its ever-dwindling membership.
    .

    Absolutely. And as I read elsewhere in someone’s comments on LLF (wish I could remember where) many people now reject the church’s teaching, not because they find it too hard (as is often said) but because they find it immoral.

    This. I am a liberal not because I find conservative theology hard and challenging, but because I find it abhorrent.

    This goes a long way beyond sexuality and gender.

    And this.

    I'm in the mental/spiritual process of giving up on the C of E. My licence as a Reader expires this year, when I reach the age of 70, but they may offer me Permission to Officiate.

    I shall probably refuse, as I no longer want to be part of such a reactionary, immoral (yes!), and abhorrent *culture*.

    Moi, aussi!

    Since leaving the UK 7 years ago, a number of people have asked me if I would ever go back. The continual homophobic nature of much of the C of E is one key reason why I wouldn't. If, when I retire, we move back to be nearer family, I would be very unlikely to apply for PTO in the C of E. I have absolutely no confidence that any of the current non-entities in the House of Bishops could provide the leadership to generate the fundamental changes required in the C of E. All bishops are now "pre-selected" to weed out anyone who might have a dissenting view or (God forbid!) an original thought.

    I daresay we're not the only ones who feel this way. Whether or not the C of E is poorer for our absence is not for me to say...

    I don't attend services any more (the pandemic is my excuse), but I do contribute financially, and I assist in maintaining the church website, along with one or two other *backroom* jobs. If that seems a bit inconsistent, well, the parish is one of the poorest in the country, but is doing the best it can to keep the rumour of God alive. FatherInCharge deserves encouragement - a more prayerful and diligent pastor than we've had for a very long time, even though I might disagree with him on one or two issues...
  • wabalewabale Shipmate
    Blimey! No wonder they left out the 'Hope' from 'Living in Love and Faith'! I'm sorry so many of you are suffering from Anglicanism, alongside the LGBTIQ Christians who have suffered a roller-coster existence for 1800 years or so. I look at it from a different perspective: the C of E has been aweful and appalling in the area of leadership for the half century I have been a member. My own satisfaction with the LLF course is nothing much to do with anything the bishops of the Church of England have done, and especially not with the way they have handled the LLF process. Except for one crucial thing: finallly the bishops have openly acknowledged that they are split, and, however clumsily, they are explicitly asking the wider Christian community to help. From time to time over the entire history of the Church the bishops have got it wrong, and 'ordinary Christians' have had to put it right. (And that idea came from someone in a 'tribe' of Christians very different from my own, my History tutor at University who went on to be a Principal of Cuddesdon College.)
  • @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.
  • 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.
  • This needs to blow up in his useless servile face.
Sign In or Register to comment.