Influences

In my early childhood there were no pre-school play groups.  When you reached a certain age you attended the local state primary school.  Unlike today there was no choice involved: live in the catchment area of a school, then it was the one you had to go to.

There were no school uniforms and it became apparent to me that some of my peers came from well-to-do families, others from financially poor families. This showed itself in how pupils dressed, toys and lifestyle.  Some kids had holidays at the seaside, or even abroad, others had no holidays away from home.  Thus it was that I came to understand that not all have equal opportunities and ambitions.

I passed the 11 Plus examination and was rewarded with a place at the local state boys' grammar school. The demarcation of kids at this age was stark.  Grammar schools opened opportunites for an education leading to university, the professions, senior positions in government etc.  Secondary modern schools were for those society expected to undertake 'other' work: labourers,  factory workers, janitors, miners,  etc.  

My understanding of how 'the system' worked was brought home to me by the streaming system at my school,  The top stream had all the better teachers and pupils were pressed to study harder.  Top stream pupils were the ones expected to do well in examinations and gain entry to top universities. I noted that pupils in the top stream were not there on intellectual ability. Places were reserved for the sons of the local establishment: sons of vicars, local government officers and councillors, doctors, solicitors, accountants, local trade union leaders, business leaders etc.  Selection based on class and status.

Thus it was that my embryonic ideas formed that we were not equal, that society was geared to maintaining advantages for some.  In other words what I came to know as systemic injustice.

I was fortunate to make it to university.  My studies for a law degree led me to understand how politics and law could be used to either protect those with privilege in society, or as a vehicle for change.

I  read "The Affluent Society" by John Kenneth Galbraith.  He argued that economics was not, as I had studied at school, a set of self-standing, inviolable, unchanging rules.  Rather the rules are a complex product of the cultural, economic, social and political context in which they are applied. 

Galbraith identified what he described as the 'underclass' by which he did not mean the criminal classes: rather he meant individuals who undertake poorly paid work, live in bad housing, have poor health provision, poor working conditions, poor public transport, poor education etc.  This underclass sustains the living styles of the affluent classes.  Society has it within its power the resources to remove systems that produce this disparity: but chooses not to.  

It was against this background that I came to support the political philosophy of democratic socialism.  Many years later I found myself penniless, homeless, jobless and divorced.  It was this experience that turned me towards reading the Christian bible:  in particular to the teaching of Jesus.  What I read resonated with my political opinions.  So, my understanding of the message of Jesus reinforced my support for democratic socialism whilst at the same time I was understanding the message of Jesus through the lens of democratic socialism.  

A coming together

The following is a composite taken from previous blog posts. 

Do we consign our knowledge, understanding and experience into separate silos? Are there ring-fenced divides between your personal and public persona, your political, theological, scientific, economic and social ideas, or do you interrelate them? More importantly, does one idea dominate?  Do theological ideas determine your political ideas? Does your family background or life events strongly influence your thinking, deliberately or subconsciously?

I subscribe to the political philosophy of democratic socialism. To what extent is this a consequence of my upbringing and life experience and my theological ideas? What I do say is that my political and theological stances are a result of interaction of a number of factors and that change of opinion in respect of one factor effects change in others.  I suggest we move away from a mentality attempting to consign ideas into silos. Instead see our ideas as an ever-changing kaleidoscope affecting our thoughts across the gamut of disciplines.

For the past 35 years I have engaged in the pursuit of social justice by campaigning for systemic change to the structures of society causing injustice. Alongside this I have been involved with faith and secular organisations seeking to alleviate the symptoms of injustice, in other words helping people at point of need. It has been a a long, tortuous journey. Along the way I have engaged with faith, secular, business, political and governmental organisations. It has been humbling to meet and work with people with similar motivation to mine, many of whom have done and achieved far more than ever I could.

The war on poverty, marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination is ongoing. Some battles have been won but the forces ranged against social justice are deeply entrenched. They will be for many years unless there is favourable major political upheaval.

My motivation was and is a decision to follow and promote the concept of love your neighbour and in particular its expression in the principles attributed to Jesus in the christian New Testament. These principles may be discerned by reading the Synoptic Gospels with particular regard to the Sermon on the Mount and the parables. Within the gospels are comparisons with statements in the Old Testament that illustrate the distinction between a legalistic rule-based approach and an approach founded upon the sweeping principle of love.

The message of Jesus is profound and deeply attractive. I don't know if Jesus was an actual person or the product of myth, folklore, symbolism, metaphor or custom, but it doesn't matter. No, really it doesn't. What does matter are the principles to be discerned from the texts: a broad, expansive guide to equality for all and not a rigid set of rules.

My theological and political ideas have distilled to this: love your neighbour, help them by alleviating the symptoms of injustice: campaign for systemic change in society to achieve social justice for all. Now I am firmly of the opinion that what matters is not a set of beliefs.  What matters is behaviour, action, loving neighbour, not just as theory but as practical action, helping individuals at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.

I do not like to use labels to describe my theological thinking. No one label fits the bill for me. My current thinking is a fluid mixture, melange or mosaic of inter alia postmodern, Quaker, humanist, existential, progressive christian, liberal christian, liberation and deconstructivist concepts. It is not based on certainty, not on blind belief. It is like the sand of the desert, ever moving, restless.  But of course my theological thinking has to be seen in the context and influence of social, political and economic ideas together with my life experience.

Silo or kaleidoscope?

Do we consign our knowledge, understanding and experience into separate silos?  Are there ring fenced divides between your personal and public persona, your political, theological, scientific, economic and social ideas, or do you interrelate them?  More importantly does one idea dominate?  Do theological ideas determine your political ideas?  Does your family background or life events dominate your thinking, deliberately or subconsciously?

In a United Kingdom context I subscribe to the political philosophy of democratic socialism. To what extent is this a consequence of my upbringing and life experience and my theological ideas?   What I do say is that my political and theological stances are a result of interaction of a number of factors and that change in attitude in respect of one factor effects change in others.  

So, I suggest we move away from a silo mentality attempting to consign ideas into silos.  Instead see our ideas as an ever-changing kaleidoscope affecting our thoughts across the gamut of disciplines.

Time to move on.......

Recent decisions by the Church of England House of Bishops regarding the Living in Love and Faith process, allied to the failure of 'my' parish's Parochial Church Council to support the prayers of blessing in Prayers of Love and Faith on the odd ground that they are discriminatory - yes really!,  has led me to consider my position as a member of the Church.

I appreciate the language of the Book of Common Prayer and choral evensong in much the same way one might be enthused by  drama or operatic performances. The message might not convince, the performance sublime.  I shall continue to attend services as spectator rather than  participant.

Readers of this blog know I do not like to use labels to describe my theological thinking.  No one label fits the bill for me.  My current thinking is a fluid mixture,  melange or mosaic of inter alia  postmodern, Quaker,  humanist, existential, progressive christian, liberal christian, liberation and deconstructivist concepts.  It is not based on certainty, not on blind belief. It is like the sand of the desert, ever moving, restless.  

Gloom and despair

 The decision of the Church of England's House of Bishops effectively to kill the Living in Love and Faith process has caused gloom, despair, despondency, anger, rage, fury, sadness amongst the clerical and lay Anglican LGBTQ+ community, whilst the supporters of The Alliance and the Church of England Evangelical Council are rubbing their hands with glee.  Sadly bullying tactics: withholding money, threatening schism have paid off.  The bishops have funked it and are hiding behind as yet unpublished advice setting out theological and legal impediments to standalone services of blessing for same-sex couples and provision for clergy to marry same-sex partners.  

There are those whose argue that standalone services are permitted within the existing framework (see earlier post).

The bishops claim to be seeking unity but, having caved in to forces that have acted schismatically, have now deeply upset another constituency.  Unity is not achievable and in pursuing the myth that it is bishops have lost respect and trust. The only hope has to be that the House of Bishops will reflect on the appalling damage that has been wrought and have a change of heart before the next General Synod.  But don't count on it.

One consequence of the House of Bishop's statement has been to fire up organisations like Inclusive Church and Together for the Church of  England to counter the malign influence of the Church of England Evangelical Council and The Alliance.  

Crumbs of comfort? A call to action!

The following article was published on inclusiveevangelicals.com website. Following an introduction by David Runcorn there follows an article by the Revd. Canon Simon Butler, one time Prolocutor of the Canterbury Convocation.

The article is an important contribution to the debate following the recently published LLF material by the Church  of England on the House of Bishops' discussions. The House of Bishops have stalled (killed?) any meaningful progress in proceeding with Living in Love and Faith,  much to the dismay, despair, indeed anger, of the LGBT+ community who feel they have been sold down the river by bishops seeking  a spurious, unachievable unity within the Church of England.

Clergy is non celibate gay marriages have had their hope of progress dashed and there will be no progress towards permitting same-sex marriage in Church of England authorised services until a two thirds majority of each House of General Synod agrees.   

It has been suggested that even stand-alone services of blessing in church of  same  sex couples are not permitted, although blessings within an authorised service are to continue. But is it a doctrinal issue requiring two thirds majorities? Rightly in my opinion the writer of the article begs to disagree.

The following article hopefully will lift some of the despondency and anguish currently felt in liberal and progressive circles.

 

Crumbs of Comfort: Standing together for Standalone Services

Writer: David Runcorn

Canon Simon Butler was for some years one of the most senior priests in General Synod and a member of the Archbishops' Council. He is Rector of Holy Trinity & St Mary’s Guildford .

'The crumbs of Living in Love and Faith (LLF) are meagre. Institutionally-speaking, the Church of England is almost as unwelcoming to those LGBT+people who wish to celebrate their life-long commitment before God as it was before LLF began. Whatever happened to “radical new Christian inclusion”?

Personally, it is deeply disillusioning. Once more, my work as a priest has been undermined by the actions of the House of Bishops, my calling questioned, our classic Anglican welcome to all compromised. The bishops forever tell us to be hopeful, to keep faith, and always disappoint, often diminishing my sense of vocation into a job. Their decisions this week will have the effect of doing this for many, condemning the Church to a morale-sapping war of attrition.

But however passive-aggressively hostile the Church of England remains for same-sex couples, at the local level things are often different. At Holy Trinity & St Mary’s, Guildford, I have used Prayers of Love and Faith(PLF) in two standalone services since they were permitted and would welcome further enquires (check the website!). They have been simple occasions of quiet joy. The pastoral task laid upon me by my ordination vows and the mission of God in this community is more important than allowing an illegitimate request from the House of Bishops to get in the way.

Illegitimate? Absolutely. Throughout the LLF process in General Synod, I asked the House of Bishops repeatedly what prevented me from using the PLF resources in standalone services. The response was always the same request: please don’t. Now, with the news that the bishops want clergy not to use PLF resources in standalone services until General Synod has achieved a two-thirds majority, is this anything more than a reasonable request? I say that it is. I say it is an illegitimate piece of overreach by our bishops that clergy are at liberty to ignore.

At my licensing, I made a solemn affirmation of canonical obedience to my Bishop (I don’t swear oaths on conscience grounds). In granting me his licence, my Bishop gave me the liberty to exercise my ministry within the bounds of the doctrine and Canons of the Church of England. It’s a quid pro quo: clergy minister within those boundaries, our bishops give us freedom to minister according to our consciences to the fullest extent of those boundaries. (I note in passing the widespread disobedience to the Canons by Evangelicals and Catholics that is never challenged. Liturgical illegality is endemic among Charismatic Evangelicals[1]; bishops wave monstrances at Benediction without a second thought).

When the House of Bishops published and commended the PLF resources they declared that there was nothing in them contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. They permitted them to be used in existing authorised services, but not in standalone services. This was a liturgical innovation for our Church – worship resources that can only be used in certain services and not in others. Ironically, such a change may itself require a two-thirds majority in General Synod!

When I have offered standalone PLF services in the past two years, following a unanimous PCC decision, I have done this because the Canons of the Church of England permit it. Canon B5 (On the discretion of ministers in conduct of public worship) is quite explicit: “The minister having the cure of souls may on occasions for which no provision is made…use forms of service considered suitable by him [sic] for those occasions and may permit another minister to use the said form of service.” They must be “reverent or seemly” and shall “be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.” In short, I am using the discretion given to me at my licensing to exercise pastoral ministry within canonical boundaries. I understand that the legal and theological advice the House has recently received says nothing that would contradict this view.

I would go further – something the bishops have accepted throughout LLF despite the objections of conservatives: that there is legitimate disagreement about what is an “essential” matter of doctrine. With such latitude, faced with a simple request not to use the resources in standalone services, I believe I am free to say, with politeness and respect, “you ask of me something you are not at liberty to ask.” Less politely put, “wind your necks in.”

Some clergy will be worried about being disobedient to their bishops, but I hope this makes it clear that this is a matter of canonical freedom that already exists for clergy, and that it would be an illegitimate use of episcopal power, if not a matter of discipline, for a bishop to threaten those who do with any repercussions. It is time to challenge the bishops here, especially as they have so clearly buckled to the threats and deep pockets of The Alliance.

But perhaps the bishops aren’t saying quite what we think. I think it is possible to interpret the bishops’ decision on standalone services as simply saying that it would require a two-thirds majority in Synod in order for them to become an authorised liturgy; and not that clergy should desist from exercising their existing discretion in the Canons to conduct standalone services. I shall be continuing to do offer such services, and would welcome the opportunity to challenge the legal basis of any attempt to prevent me.

When the Gospel was preached in synagogues by the early followers of The Way, it often faced opposition. The response of the disciples was to turn to the Gentiles. Faced with the inability of the institutional church – led by its bishops – to allow the good news of God’s love to be available to all who love well and with holiness, perhaps it falls, despite the inevitable postcode lottery, to the parochial clergy of the Church of England to do what the bishops are clearly unable to do.'

[1] In his most recent Ad Clerum a diocesan bishop writes “I would love to see every church re-establish a communal confession and absolution.” I would expect a bishop in the Anglican tradition to require it!

I would like to see Together for the Church of England compile a directory of parishes willing to hold stand-alone services of blessing.  Like Simon Butler I too would welcome guidance on the legal basis for preventing stand-alone services.  

See this comment by Robert Thompson

'Simon Butler speaks I think for the majority of clergy here ♥️;

Now is the time to simply do ‘stand-alone’ services for happily married #LGBTQIA+ couples even if the @churchofengland bishops @CottrellStephen @bishopSarahM & the rest of them have said we can’t. 

The vicious campaign against allowing even this minute piece of pastoral care, has been constituted by deeply un Christlike bullying: the withdrawal of contributions to dioceses, threats to leave the church if it was allowed…

The irony here of course is that this has been done by many of the same people who disregard using common prayer, proper liturgy & virtually every other piece of our inherited polity….

There is much nonsense that so many are allowed to get away with & it includes real harm to queer people through conversion therapy & prayer ministry & yet the bishops in the face of such abuse to nothing at all.

Now is the time to challenge their collective immorality. Now is the time to say enough is enough. Now is the time to bless love in its wonderful, colourful, variety of forms.  

May God’s reign of justice & peace come. 🌈🏳️‍⚧️'

Since publishing the above I have read this excellent article by Nicholas Adams:

Adversaries: Living in Love and Faith

Adventures in the Theology of Disappointment

The Bishops of the Church of England have decided together that there will be no change in the foreseeable future to its practices in relation to gay couples.

This means that there can be prayers for married couples in regular church services, but no special services. It also means that gay clergy cannot get married at all, whether in church or in a civil marriage.

(Those interested in the technicalities: these deeper changes require legislation of a kind that is almost impossible to obtain in practice.)

Why?

What they say: unity is more important than change.

What they mean: a powerful minority has got its way.

Minority? Yes, it is a minority who are determined that there should be no marriage services for gay Christians. This requires a bit of nuance, which I shall now attempt.

Meanwhile: a conservative Anglican group of African and other bishops has just (days ago) expressed its dismay at the news that a woman who refuses to denounce homosexual marriage has been named the next Archbishop of Canterbury. This group, Gafcon, is all male in both its leadership and its advisory group. Unity is already under threat, in other words.

Living in Love and Faith is the name of a process, now five years old, for encouraging conversation between those in the Church of England who hold different and often opposing views about gay relationships.

It has an odd and unsatisfactory character: the idea was to bring together opposing sides. 

This is odd and unsatisfactory because, well, it establishes the reality of opposing sides.

There are indeed opposing sides, namely those who strongly affirm gay relationships and those who strongly denounce them. Members of these groups are not going to change their minds and do not expect to change the minds of their opponents. They were already in an adversarial relation.

But a lot of CofE folk were in 2020 trying to figure out what they thought; or they were thinking one thing but open to thinking another; or were changing what they thought. What side were they on? Neither. Were they in adversarial relationship with others? Not really.

Living in Love and Faith was not intended to create opposing sides. But its adversarial structure (to be contrasted with its non-adversarial tone and intent) in practice led individuals and even churches to declare which side they were on before the process got underway.

The adversarial structure created adversaries.

A contrast with a General Election is instructive. We know that there are many people in England who do not belong to a political party and whose vote is uncertain. And they do not need to declare their vote. But in the LLF process, the structure encouraged people to think of themselves as members of a party, and encouraged them to declare their allegiance.

This has had some bad effects.

Those with complex or shifting views ended up declaring simple and static views.

Those with affirming views who were part of non-affirming families and churches ended up declaring non-affirming views.

Those who might have been slowly (or quickly) changing their minds ended up stuck where they began.

Why? Because of the dynamics of families and churches, and especially in relation to things like sponsorship, patronage, and employment.

These bad effects create further odd effects.

For example, if someone declares that they are affirming, they are probably affirming. But if someone declares that they are non-affirming, they might be non-affirming, but they also might be stuck.

Living in Love and Faith was intended to unstick things, but for the most part it has created quite a large group of stuck Anglicans who declare themselves non-affirming because there is no way out. The adversarial structure requires them to declare allegiance to a party to which they do not necessarily belong.

It's as though a group of benign Christian physicists, faced with Schroedinger's cat, decide that the box should always be open from the start. Except that in this case, it turns out that the cat is always dead.

There are in fact many non-affirming churches with a significant number of members who are affirming. That is true of my own. But the LLF process inhibits finding this out.

This is especially true of a group often called 'conservative Christians' or, even more so, 'Evangelical Christians'. These groups display broad internal diversity. There are many within them who affirm gay relationships as fully Christian. But if their churches want access to the parallel financial structures of well-funded conservative groups, or if individuals want to be ordained in the service of their churches, they must declare themselves non-affirming. Which they do, with all the moral horror that accompanies it.

It is possible to denounce such folk as spineless, or cowardly, or worse. I take a different view. It costs me nothing to declare that I affirm gay relationships as fully Christian. I am slow to judge those for whom the cost is significant. 

The House of Bishops statement on 15 October is, I think, the outcome of a series of forces that are not readily observable. 

It will appear that 'the church' is inhospitable to gay couples. But this is, in a very real sense (old Anglican joke!), not true. Or not straightforwardly true. 

As long as there is an adversarial process, which is what LLF is, and as long as everyone must look inside the box at the start, which LLF encourages, there are going to be odd and unsatisfactory effects.

I now refuse to believe certain people when they say they are non-affirming. If I can see powerful family and community forces in the structure of their lives, it seems to me reasonable to suppose that they have effects. Obviously in one sense they *are* non-affirming: they refuse to affirm. But it seems to me reasonable to work on countering the forces more than the person.

Living in Love and Faith may concentrate dangerous and damaging forces in a way that distorts the moral lives of Christians. This is of course directly in contradiction of its intention and its tone.

The damage will take a while to undo. 

The chief form of repair will be to encourage forms of action which are non-adversarial.

This is very hard. So many of our structures are adversarial because our social histories are so adversarial: in education (the 'defence'), in law ('prosecution and defence'), in sport (the 'attack and defence'), in news media (the interview), in debate (two sides), and so on. It's relentless.

For the philosophers among us this is guided more deeply by binary patterns of thought and two-factor logics. These are perfectly normal and healthy under certain conditions. But they can become toxic when a generous approach to difference is required.

For those in anguish at this episcopal result, these reflections are not obviously encouraging. I'm basically saying: it appears worse than it is.

But this is increasingly the form which hope takes for me. It is tempting to be clever and say that LLF is too much living and not enough love and faith. 

But I want to say this:

Do not allow others to persuade you that all is lost.

Do not believe people who tell you that evil has triumphed.

Refuse to listen to those who say we are adversaries.

We do have adversaries and we have a moral duty to stop them.

But the number of adversaries is fewer than we might suppose.

Those who are not divided can resist division.

If we are not divided, we remain difficult to conquer.

Shocking, disgraceful, deplorable

The following was published by the Church of England yesterday. You can imagine the outrage, anger and upset it has occasioned in the LBGTQ+ community and supporters. The CEEC and the Alliance must be delighted.  It is a masterpiece of fudge, delay and suffocation of the LLF process. 

'Church of England’s House of Bishops makes decisions about future of Living in Love and Faith process

The House of Bishops has made a series of key decisions on the future direction of the Church of England’s Living in Love and Faith process, which explores questions of relationships, sexuality and marriage. Final decisions will be taken in December.

At its residential meeting last week, bishops reviewed detailed theological and legal advice on outstanding questions following the landmark 2023 Synod vote that led to the introduction of the Prayers of Love and Faith (or PLF).

The PLF are a set of prayers, readings and liturgical material which, for the first time, enable same-sex couples to come to church for public prayers of dedication, thanksgiving and asking for God’s blessing as part of a regular church service.

Since then, the church has been exploring whether special “bespoke” services using the PLF could be introduced and whether clergy could legally enter into same-sex marriages. There has also been extensive consideration of possible new arrangements for how the church is organized, including so-called “Delegated Episcopal Ministry.”

The bishops reviewed advice both from the Church of England’s legal office and the Faith and Order Commission, all of which will be published in due course.

While final decisions will be made by the House in December, the bishops agreed in principle that both bespoke service and clergy same-sex marriage would need formal synodical and legislative processes to be completed before they could be permitted.

As a result, they also concluded there is currently no need for a new code of practice setting out special arrangements such as Delegated Episcopal Ministry.

Although there remains a wide range of views within the House of Bishops on questions of sexuality and relationships, there was strong consensus on the need for unity, transparency and proper process alongside pastoral care. Despite personal convictions across traditions, the House of Bishops recognized these were the procedural realities to effect any future change.

Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, chair of the LLF Programme Board, commented: “As we continue prayerfully to navigate this important work on behalf of the church, we believe these are the right decisions following further legal and theological advice.

“However, we recognise that for some, they will be difficult and disappointing.

“I continue to pray for God’s grace and gentleness for all as we continue to discern a way through these questions.”

Key decisions:

The bishops took part in a series of votes on elements of a statement that would summarise the LLF process and outcomes. They indicated, on the basis of the advice received, that in December they will:

*Confirm that the Prayers of Love and Faith, for use in regularly scheduled services, remain commended by the House of Bishops for use under Canon B5;

*Agree that bespoke services require maximum communal authorization through the Canon B2 process of approval;

*Reflect further on the legal and theological advice and explore what formal legislative process – such as an amending canon and measure – would be required before clergy could be permitted to be in a same-sex civil marriage. Until then the current guidelines would remain in place. 

*They also agreed they would provide pastoral reassurance through:

A restatement that no one is obliged to use the PLF against their conscience; 

Updating Pastoral Guidance for the Prayers of Love and Faith as currently commended;

A commitment that diocesan decisions around allocating resources, placement of ordinands and curates, or appointments, should not be affected by views held on LLF matters; and

Re-establishing a Pastoral Consultative Group to advise and support decision-making on such matters.

Given the decisions indicated above, the bishops concluded that there was sufficient pastoral reassurance in the elements listed and did not propose to bring forward a code of practice at this time.

While there was a range of views expressed on questions of sexuality and marriage, the decisions on most points were reached with near unanimity – spanning the breadth of theological tradition.'

Meanwhile the Alliance is making a mockery of the concept of unity by pressing on with a campaign for a  'Day of Action' on 1st December inviting PCCs to withdraw from CofE structures if any real progress is made on the LLF process.  See below.

Church Times

Persuade PCCs to take action if same-sex blessings move forward, Alliance tells its clergy

byFrancis Martin16 October 2025.

Network encourages incumbents who are unhappy with LLF process to make known their church’s willingness to withdraw from Church of England structures

THE Alliance network has been encouraging incumbents who are unhappy with the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process to make known their church’s willingness to withdraw from Church of England structures.

Behind the scenes, the Alliance — a network of church organisations opposed to the changes brought by the LLF process — has been encouraging incumbents to persuade their PCCs to pass a resolution stating that, if the Church of England moves forward with either stand-alone services or clergy same-sex marriage, the parish will take at least one of a set of actions. Those include: seeking “alternative episcopal oversight”, a decision to “reroute their diocesan financial contributions”, and moves to “encourage ordinands to participate in an orthodox vocations programme”.

On Wednesday afternoon, the House of Bishops announced that full synodical approval would be required for either standalone services or clergy same-sex marriage, effectively stalling LLF (News, 15 October). The Bishops also announced that, as a result, they did not consider it necessary to develop any model of alternative episcopal oversight.

A document, “Alliance Campaign Manual”, seen by the Church Times, encourages clergy to participate in a “Day of Action” on 1 December when they hope that “thousands of clergy and PCCs” will write to their diocesan bishops to inform them of their decision. “Church leaders who cannot agree decisions with PCC [sic] will be encouraged to write in a personal capacity,” the document says.

The document advises clergy to have one-to-one conversations with PCC members to get support for a resolution. “One-to-one conversations are crucial in ensuring a PCC has a productive discussion, moves towards a common mind and adopts the actions outlined above,” it says.

In a “majority progressive context . . . Prioritising one-to-one meetings with PCC members is probably the significant step,” the document continues.

“It may also be important for Incumbents to remind PCC members of their roles as Trustees — to represent the congregation and focus on the theology and mission of the church rather than personal experience and conviction,” the document says.

Ordination pathways have also become an area of contention in debates around LLF (News, 23 February 2024). The Alliance document recommends a “new orthodox vocations programme” that is being “piloted” by the diocese of Southwell & Nottingham “under” the diocesan Bishop, the Rt Revd Paul Williams.

Called ReadyToServe, the scheme is not a formal discernment process, but the Alliance commends it as an “opportunity that provides the space and inspiration for possible candidates to explore God’s calling to ordained ministry”.

In the General Synod, Bishop Williams has consistently voted against proposals brought under the LLF process. He has, however, distanced himself from the apparent appropriation of his diocese’s programme. A spokesperson for the diocese said: “The course is for everyone, and has no particular stance or angle. Bishop Paul has already pointed out to the Alliance that their description and recommendation is wholly unhelpful and misleading.

THE Alliance came to public prominence in 2023 when a letter sent by the leaders of 11 C of E organisations to the College of Bishops was leaked to the Church Times (News, 7 July 2023). The signatories included the chairs of both the Catholic and Evangelical groups on the Synod, as well as the Vicar of Holy Trinity, Brompton, the Revd Archie Coates, and the church’s former vicar, and founder of the Alpha course, the Revd Nicky Gumbel.

The letter called for the Prayers of Love and Faith to undergo a Canon B2 process in the Synod. This requires a two-thirds majority in each of the Synod’s three Houses. This, to date, LLF proposals have failed to achieve.

Last year, in a further letter to bishops, the Alliance wrote that if stand-alone or “bespoke” services of blessing were allowed, it would have “no choice” but to establish a “de facto ‘parallel Province’” (News, 28 June 2024).

In November 2023, an amendment calling on the Bishops to consider a trial period for stand-alone services was carried by the Synod, but to date no such services have officially taken place (News, 15 November).

Another demand of those opposed to the LLF process is for structural provision for parishes and clergy which oppose the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples.

In February, the LLF lead bishop at the time, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, said that the reassurance given by a model of shared episcopacy might be “enough to allow clergy to enter same-sex civil marriages”.

Bishop Snow stepped down as lead bishop in June, saying that, while he hoped that it “may yet be possible” to agree a “way forward in the Church of England on matters of sexuality, relationships, and marriage . . . I don’t think that can happen under my leadership.

End of Church Times article. 

So bullying and threatening has paid off. Spurious unity at human cost.  The LBGTQ+ community has good cause to be upset and angry at this despicable surrender by the  House of Bishops. Shame on it.

Possibly my valedictory post..

For the past 35 years I have engaged in the pursuit of social justice by campaigning for systemic change to the structures of society causing injustice.  Alongside this I have been involved with faith and secular organisations seeking to alleviate the symptoms of injustice, in other words helping people at point of need.  It has been a a long, tortuous journey.  Along the way I have engaged with faith, secular, business and governmental organisations.  It has been humbling to meet and work with people with similar motivation to mine, many of whom have done and achieved far more than ever I could.

The war on poverty, marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination is ongoing.  Some battles have been won but the forces ranged against social justice are deeply entrenched.  They will be so for many years to come unless there is favourable major political upheaval.

My motivation over the past 35 years years was the decision to follow and promote the concept of love your neighbour and in particular its expression in the principles attributed to Jesus in the christian New Testament.  These principles may be discerned by  reading the Synoptic Gospels with particular regard to the Sermon on the Mount and the parables. Within the gospels are comparisons with statements in the Old Testament that illustrate the distinction between a legalistic rule-based approach and an approach founded upon the sweeping principle of love.

The message of Jesus is profound and deeply attractive. I don't know if Jesus was an actual person or the product of myth, folklore, symbolism, metaphor and custom, but it doesn't matter.  No, really it doesn't.  What does matter are the principles to be discerned from the texts: a broad, expansive guide to equality for all and not a rigid set of rules.

After 3 years of writing my blog my ideas have distilled to this:  love your neighbour, help them by alleviating the symptoms of injustice: campaign for systemic change in society to achieve social justice for all.

I don't concern myself with questions about the nature of a god or the likelihood of life after death.  We all die and will know, or maybe not,  soon enough.  Regard all scripture as of soley human origin and don't be beguiled by doctrine and dogma of religious organisations.

Instead, just focus on acting out the teaching attributed to Jesus, follow him in seeking a society and world dedicated to the love of all humanity and the environment.  It is a message of hope in a divided world.

Pragmatism

Four short pieces on pragmatism

1.

I have believed for many years that the resolution of issues is best achieved by taking a pragmatic approach unfettered by assumptions and opinions entrenched in dogma associated with a specific philosophy. That is not to state that there is no need for guiding principles but principles exist for just that purpose, to guide, not to act as a total fetter or constraint on reaching resolution of issues.

An example. The National Health Service in England is in very poor shape and no matter how much money is spent on it matters do not improve. Finding solutions to the various problems is not helped by a dogmatic assertion of the need for privatisation or retention of public ownership. What is required is finding the most appropriate solution unfettered by political considerations underpinned by political philosophies. An individual on a long waiting list for treatment couldn't care less how the waiting period is reduced and even less about arguments over private or public ownership.  Dogma and bigotry borne of adhering slavishly to a philosophy have been the cause of much misery.

2.

I believe we do need to consider the relationship between applying principles and being pragmatic.  In 1985 the Church of England published a report on urban priority areas. Its title: Faith in the City. It painted a woeful picture of prejudice, bigotry and poverty and their causes. At the time the Conservative government and its acolytes told the Church to stick with the cure of souls and leave the politics to the politicians. Disgracefully little has changed since in terms of the relationship between churches and the state, and it has to be said some, but far too little, progress as been made in addressing the social issues identified in the report. 

One key paragraph in Faith in the City is this: 

Yet while many members of the Church of England have found it more congenial to express their discipleship by helping individual victims of misfortune or oppression, fewer are willing to rectify injustices in the structures of society. There is a number of reasons for this preference for 'ambulance work'. No-one minds being cast in the role of protector and helper of the weak and powerless: there is no threat here to one's superior position and one's power of free decision. But to be a protagonist of social change may involve challenging those in power and risking the loss of one's own power. Helping a victim or sufferer seldom involves conflict; working for structural change can hardly avoid it. Direct personal assistance to an individual may seem relatively straightforward, uncontroversial and rewarding; involvement in social issues implies choosing choosing between complicated alternatives and accepting compromises which seem remote from any moral position.....We have little tradition of initiating conflict and coping with it creatively. We are not at home in the tough, secular milieu of social and political activism.

Paragraph 3.7.

In the United Kingdom there has been some improvement in the way denominations challenge government on social justice issues, but there needs to be much more. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has published a number of reports in the past year setting out the stark reality of poverty and destitution. (See previous posts.). It was encouraging to note secular and faith organisations coming together to challenge politicians on poverty issues. Denominations need to engage more in initiating conflict and engage with secular social and political activists. In so doing it is essential that the need for a pragmatic approach is to the forefront and positive action is not sacrificed on the altar of unbending moral principles or,  narrow biblical interpretation.

3.

For many years the Church of England has been an uneasy collection of Liberals, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals. For the most part the disparate groups rubbed along with varying degrees of suspicion, even loathing. 

The uneasy calm was shattered by moves to ordain women as priests and later to become bishops. An  alliance of Anglo-Catholics and conservative Evangelicals blocked progress for years and eventually caved in in return for structural change in the form of alternative episcopal oversight otherwise known colloquially as 'flying bishops'. Pragmatism rather than principle triumphed, although there were some Anglo-Catholics who jumped ship and landed on the deck of the Roman Catholic Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. Some Evangelicals joined GAFCON.

4.

In the past few years a major division has opened up over the issue of blessings of same-sex marriages and the position of clergy in non-platonic, same-sex civil marriages. The division and acrimony is on public display in the General Synod. The outcome is uncertain. There is talk of schism, of a new province. Will pragmatism triumph or will there be more departures from the Church on a matter of principle? Will there be a spurious unity that does not accord with the reality? 

The Parable of the Good Samaritan tells of the triumph of the principle of love over the limitations of the application of rules. Adherence to rules guided the behaviour of the priest and the Levite. The Samaritan behaved in a pragmatic fashion, giving practical immediste assistance and ongoing support. He was not constrained by rules.

It is in this context I commend the following from Jim Rigby:  

THE SIN OF FUNDAMENTALISM

Fundamentalism imagines itself to be the essence of religion, but, by reducing religion to its unchanging “roots” fundamentalism robs religion of its living “fruits." 

The only true “fundamental” of Christianity was and is love. Love cannot be organized into a clear dogma nor established as a stable hierarchy. This is why Jesus sought to awaken people using outlandish parables but fundamentalism teaches in dogmas, rituals and rules. 

Fundamentalism is all stump and no blossom. Fundamentalism produces beliefs detached from thinking, rituals detached from creativity, and ethics detached from compassion.

Fundamentalism has to take love out of the equation to do the dirty work such reductionism requires.

Of rules and principles

Hello. Have you read all my posts? You have. Congratulations, or should that be commiserations? A set of disjointed ramblings they may be, but I trust I conveyed my empathy for an approach to Christianity rooted in postmodernism and deconstructivism with strong elements of liberation theology, liberalism and progressivism thrown in. I call it a melange of strands of theological ideas, although others may not be so polite.

My background is in law as a student and a lecturer. I lectured in jurisprudence and legal theory. In this post I plan to concentrate on how judges in common law legal systems in the UK and USA decide cases and how the process has parallels to assist our understanding scripture. Apart from statutes English law is based on the common law as ameliorated by equitable jurisdiction. Don't worry it will be explained later.   

 Common law is so-called because it applies across England and Wales. It consists of judicial decisions in legal cases known appropriately as case law. Case law consists of published reports that set out the facts of a case, the consideration by the judge(s) of the relevant law (as they perceive it), the reason(s) for the decision and judgment. We have a system based on precedent which means later cases with similar facts should be decided in like fashion to earlier cases in order to produce 'certainty'. Simple really, but no, judges will distinguish cases on the facts so as not to have to follow the decisions in earlier cases. 

Judaism had, and has, professions engaged in interpreting the Law, not just to circumvent a specific rule but also to apply it in vastly changed societies. It is the age old battle between either rigorous rigid adherence to the original rules or applying fluid and flexible interpretive methods: in Christian circles a battle continuing to this day in interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.

The judiciary find another way round decisions in earlier cases by applying their equitable jurisdiction. There are a number of maxims or principles of equity which set out the parameters within which judges may exercise this jurisdiction. Equitable jurisdiction acts as a supplement, not as a replacement to common law. It seeks to produce fair and just outcomes for individuals in the circumstances where equitable maxims may be applied. 

Concepts of fairness and justice are central to Christianity yet sadly there are those who interpret the bible in a narrow rigid manner and would exclude other interpretive methods which seek to apply the broad concepts articulated by Jesus.

 It is said that in England judges do not make law. Law making is for the Crown in Parliament through legislation. The judiciary is a mere interpreter of statutes and subordinate legislation. There are clear rules of statutory interpretation.

But what are we to make of the common law? After all, it is not made by the legislature but exists in law reports over which Parliament has no authority. Legislation may be passed to overrule or amend the common law. The myth is that judges do not make the common law, they merely interpret it. This is nonsense intended to divert attention away from the ability of an unelected body of judges to make law. 

A simple illustration of the myth. Regard the common law as a lump of potters clay. The clay may be made into all manner of shapes but it stays a lump of clay. No new clay has been created, it has simply been moulded into a new shape. The common law is shaped and moulded by the judiciary, but nothing new is created. The common law is being applied to the facts in cases, not being changed by novel judicial ideas. Nonsense.

Instead of common law think Old and New Testaments. Think of these as  a lump of clay. How is this clay shaped and moulded? How is it applied to modern society? Who is responsible for determining the meaning of scripture and its application? Who indeed?

Do you consider the meaning of a passage of scripture without any preconceptions? Highly unlikely. We do not act and think in a vacuum: in the background or foreground there are influences at work as a consequence of our knowledge, experience and motivation. Family, economics, politics, social policy, educational attainment, employment, class, income, hobbies, faith, newspapers, television et al all conspire to shape our opinions, our thinking, our action. Whether it is a judge deciding a case, a bishop commenting on a theological issue, or the man at the bar in the pub holding forth there is a complicated potpourri of factors shaping their thinking.  

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was a long- serving judge of the USA Supreme Court and a distinguished jurist. He coined the phrase inarticulate major premises as a description of how in deciding cases judges take into consideration factors outside the facts of a case and a logical application of the law to the facts, sometimes knowingly, sometimes unconsciously. In other words, a cartload of baggage. What baggage do we bring to our interpretation of scripture? When reading opinions on the meaning of scripture we should ask what agenda the author is promoting. Consider this statement by John Piper a USA Baptist minister and theologian. 

"If you alter or obscure the Biblical portrait of God in order to attract converts, you don't get converts to God, you get converts to an illusion. This is not evangelism but deception."

In other words, if you don't accept Piper's interpretation of scripture you are deluded and deceived. Piper bring his inarticulste premise to bear on biblical interpretation.

Holmes was a prolific writer. Below I have summarised three points he made concerning his understanding of the law, points which may be equally applicable to our understanding of scripture.

* The life of the law has not been logic it has been experience.

* Law is a set of generalisations of what judges did in earlier cases.

* Words are the skin of living thought.

I proffer the thought that our understanding of scripture should be akin to that of Holmes in respect of the common law. Postmodernism has drawn out the fluidity of words. Faith is not based on pure logic but on hope and experience. We should not interpret scripture as a set of static, rigid, fixed rules but as fluid and dynamic guides to faith.

According to Oliver Wendell Holmes the law has no metaphysical or natural law basis. It is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky.

 "The prophecies of what a court will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law."

Such an approach applied to scripture would not commend itself to bible literalist fundamentalists, but should pose no problems for those whose doctrinal belief is that scripture is human inspired.

We may take inspiration on how scripture should be read by referring to Holmes observations on the method that should be adopted to applying the provisions of the USA Constitution. Unlike the UK the USA has a written Constitution. Holmes argues that the Constitution should not be read as a statute is but as the common law is read.

"The provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas that have their essence in form: they are organic and living institutions. Their significance is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and line of growth."

When interpreting scripture I commend the approach outlined above. We have a living faith relevant to our time. Therefore, we must interpret scripture accordingly. Our faith must not be hampered by interpreting scripture as we would a statute. 

Beware those who seek to control, or guide us towards a static exclusive introspective faith/belief/opinion. Embrace those who guide us towards a dynamic, outgoing and inclusive undertanding. Throw out legalism, welcome reading scripture through the lens of love.  

The twin tyrannies of literalism and legalism continue to haunt our understanding of and acting on the dynamic principles of Christian faith as stated by Jesus in the two great commandments. Two simple yet profound principles urging us to take action: to love God and to follow him in the pursuit of justice. The synoptic gospels contain numerous examples of Jesus tackling literalism and legalism as well as their purveyors. It serves us well to consider how Jesus challenged the gatekeepers of his time and in so doing equip us to counter present day proponents of literal interpretation and narrow legalism.

In Matthew 5 there is a phrase used as a formula to contrast a rule and the interpretation placed on it by Jesus:

"You have heard that it was said......But I tell you."

In each case Jesus develops a broad principle out of a narrow rule.

Matthew 23 and Luke 11 expound the views of Jesus on the attitudes and behaviour of the Pharisees and the experts in the law. It is an exposition of all that Jesus considered to be wrong with the law and its interpreters and practitioners. It is unremittingly harsh. Two examples:

"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practised the latter without leaving the former undone." Luke 11:42

Justice and the love of God: the two great commandments. A move from rules to principles.

"You experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not Lift one finger to help them."  Luke 11:46

Jesus freed us from the burden of the law by fulfilling it in the two great commandments. The restrictive narrow rules are swept away on the wave of dynamic enabling principles.

A further illustration. In Mark 3 we read of a man with a shrivelled hand who was healed by Jesus on the Sabbath contrary to the law. Jesus said: 

"Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?"

Jesus challenged the religious leaders of his time. He challenges us to do likewise, to confront those who would seek to deny and exclude individuals from Christian communities by hiding behind doctrine, legalistic or literal interpretation of scripture. Instead, read scripture through the lens of love.

Deconstruction ramble

Well, here we are in the world of Don Cupitt, Friedrich Nietzsche and Jacques Derrida. All challenging philosophers for a Christian. It is not my intention to write summaries of the main arguments of the aforementioned. Rather, there follows observations there to be shot at. It is a series of jottings and certainly not a dissertation. 

So, take a deep breath and plunge into the subject, well at least dip a toe in the water. Is there a god or God? Does God exist and if so where and how? Is God a creation of human imagination and non-existent beyond that? Is scripture divinely inspired or simply the product of the ponderings of humanity? Is religion an opiate of the masses, a means of social control, or is it a vehicle for freeing people from the chains of enslavemen and oppression, or something else? Take your pick. You can argue with people until you are exhausted but it is impossible to 'prove' one opinion to be correct and others wrong. You cannot make a fact out of an opinion or an 'is' out of an 'ought".

So what turns an individual into a person of faith? A damascene conversion, a feeling of being 'strangely warmed' (John Wesley), knowing and seeing Christians in action, convinced by reading scripture, or some other experience?

A definition of faith is to be found in Hebrews: 11.1

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (NIV)

"Thus we have confidence in what we hope for. Faith is not proof or evidence of what is unseen. Rather it is the mode by which invisible realities become real for humanity. Faith is not inferior to knowledge, it is the proper mode of knowledge in relation to unseen realities." (Montefiore)

Catholics stress the importance of three strands identified in the writing of Hooker: scripture, reason and tradition. Protestants emphasise the primacy of scripture, although sadly interpretation is sometimes marked by an absence of reason or plain commonsense. Possibly the motivation for this is a longing for certainty and proof, which of course is illusory. The fundamentalist literalist approach to biblical interpretation is driven by this yearning for certainty and proof. Any suggestion of alternative interpretation is anathema to such a mindset, a mindset inimical to a better understanding of the Good News of Jesus. Such an approach makes its followers slaves to a text, not free to enjoy the fullness of God's love.

However whilst a person may lack faith nihilists such as Nietzsche claim it is a wasted effort to seek God. God does not exist, so faith is useless. There are no overarching metaphysical entities that are the source of objective truth. To claim otherwise is to be deluded. Of course this is merely an assertion and we may choose to ignore it, indeed as Christians we reject it, or don't we?

Charles 1 head was chopped off and thus ended the application of the concept of the divine right of a monarch to rule unfettered, at least in England. With him died the application of the concept that a sovereign is pre-destined by God, receives his/her authority from God and has no duties or responsibilites for the citizens of the realm. 

 In its stead a new concept. A sovereign could only rule with the consent of and within limitations imposed by Parliament, there being a contract, express or implied between the sovereign and the people. A metaphysical concept replaced by a human concept. The link between God and the sovereign had been severed and replaced by a contract between the sovereign and the people to rule in the interest of the latter. It is a transfer of power. Is such a transfer contrary to scripture and worthy of literalist fundamentalists angst? Doubtless they will contrive an unconvincing response.

Can we be Christians without a belief in a metaphysical god? The Sea of Faith movement has it that we can. I know Church of England clergy who hold this view. The old joke is that when the Creed is recited at a service such a minister says 'I believe' then crosses his/her fingers!

Deconstructivism is a postmodernist development attributable to Jacques Derrida. Concepts are based on the subjective meaning ascribed to words by the reader and in understanding this meaning we use words which in turn are understood by other words ad infinitum. Therefore the meaning of words is fluid and this makes it difficult to have a clear definition of concepts such as justice, faith and truth. It follows that meaning is subjective and of human origin and not objective and of metaphysical origin. All objects have meaning only through being defined by language. The implications of this for biblical interpretation have been mentioned in earlier parts of this blog.

The Sea of Faith movement is deconstructivist and akin to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's concept of 'religionless Christianity'. Such Christianity is a way of life based on subjective understanding of the meaning of the words of Jesus: not on systems of belief, doctrines, dogmas and rules: nor on the rites and rituals of churches falsely cloaked in supposed objectivity. 

But is this all this postmodernism too bleak for Christians to contemplate? Does it reduce Christianity to a secular prospectus? I shall explore this in more detail in future posts. I am outside my comfort zone, so for me it will an interesting journey.

Are the phrases 'Religionless Christianity' and 'Secular Christianity' oxymorons? Do labels matter given the baggage attached to them?

Postmodernism eschews all metaphysical concepts. There is no God laying down absolute rules. All rules are made by humans, are subjective and fluid as they are interpreted as to their import through language. Postmodernism argues that claims to objectivity by the church are a means of its securing power and control over people, in other words guardians and gatekeepers of the only truth. The literalist Christian mindset endorses and promotes the objectivity approach.

The Progressive Christianity approach may offer a way forward as well as making sense of Bonhoeffer's phrase 'Religionless Christianity'. 

Religion is not a synonym for faith. We considered in an earlier  the meaning of faith as set out in Hebrews 11:1. Religion is bound up in church doctrine, dogmas, creeds, rules, regulations and approved scriptural interpretation. You join the club and agree to obey the rules. Religionless Christianity simply rejects these hindrances to faith.

According to this approach Christians should concentrate on action to apply the teaching of Jesus. Jesus is the focus of an active faith. What this means for individual Christians and the hoped for impact of the approach will be teased out in future parts.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer coined the phrase 'religionless Christianity' to encapsulate his understanding of christian theology. His ideas are of relevance in the postmodernist world. The two key concepts are:

1. The need for intercessionary prayer, bringing before God those suffering injustice, identifying with them and praying for power and strength to stand up for what is right and just, not leaving nor expecting God to act.

2. We should seek to follow Jesus by engaging in action to promote justice for the marginalised and oppressed in our world.

In other words we should pick up our cross and follow Jesus into battle for the poor in society, not by mere intellectual assent, but by our actions.

Our focus should be on Jesus, not the religious trappings of doctrine, creeds, dogma and gatekeepers.

Bonhoeffer is promoting the centrality of the two Great Commandments and the imperative of our engagement through action, costly though it is.

Love God, love others. Don't just think it, do it.

On labels

I dislike putting a label on my theological opinions. The effect is to box in one's opinions with the prejudices attached to the label.  No, I prefer to outline my opinions without the assistance, or otherwise, of labels.

Do I believe in god?  Does god exist and if so in what form?  My answer is that we just do not know.  Am I an atheist, agnostic, humanist, theist, pantheist or panentheist?  There are no objective facts or truths to enable a definitive definition to be made, so we are reliant on our own ideas.  For my part I do not consider god to be anthropromophic, nor do I consider there to be overarching metaphysical concepts ruling our lives. Natural law and universal human rights are concepts created by humanity, not god given.

It is claimed by some that god is love.  We may choose to accept that opinion and some will consider that to be a statement of belief or even faith.  

Scripture is not god given.  It is a human construct stating the ideas of the authors at the time of writing.  We read the words through our own eyes and experience, placing our own interpretion on their meaning.  This does not render scripture valueless or inconsequential.  It contains concepts of love and social justice that may be considered to be timeless principles regardless of location and context.  These principles are enuniciated by a range of authors in what Christians call the Old Testament and are attributed to Jesus in the New Testament. 

I seek to promote social justice and a way of living based on the ideas attributed to Jesus. It is my opinion that we may perceive the teaching of Jesus as a body of ideas separate from christianity.

The new Archbishop of Canterbury

Congratulations are in order to the Crown Nominations Commission for selecting Sarah Mullally, the Bishop of London, as the next Archbishop of Canterbury. She faces a daunting task.  Already GAFCON has expressed its disapproval whilst CEEC has been quick off the mark to press its agenda.

Let us hope that through her leading the CofE will sort out quickly  the safeguarding shambles it is embroiled in: both in terms of prevention and care of victims of abuse.

The Living in Love and Faith saga needs to be drawn to an early conclusion as it continues to sap the energy of the Church. 

It is to be hoped the CofE will seek to bolster support for the parish system across all traditions.  Radical change is funding and administrative arrangements need to made.  

The time is ripe for a shake-up of Church bureaucracy focusing initially on Church House.

The Bishop of London is regarded widely as the third most significant clerical position in thr CofE.  Attention will turn to who follows Sarah Mullally.  

The disastrous tenures of  two of the three of her immediate predecessors has led to the divisive issues confronting her.  She deserves our wholehearted support as she strives to undo the damage inflicted by her predecessors.

The grind of poverty

"The true horror of existence is not the fear of death, but the fear of life. It is the fear of waking up each day to face the same struggles, the same disappointments, the same pain. It is the fear that nothing will ever change, that you are trapped in a cycle of suffering that you cannot escape. And in that fear, there is a desperation, a longing for something, anything, to break the monotony, to bring meaning to the endless repetition of days."

— Albert Camus, The Fall

Stark but real, as I testify from personal experience and from witnessing the lives of others imprisoned in a life of poverty, discrimination or marginalisation. Society and politicians fail individuals caught up in this life of despair. Christians emphasising the need for repentance and salvation as the ticket to the kingdom of heaven, whilst downplaying the call of Jesus to work for the kingdom on earth, offer no solace, comfort or escape route from the misery of everyday life, from hand to mouth existence, from loan sharks, from any number of debilitating factors.

It is no wonder that church attendance by the poorer sections of society has fallen off faster than amongst the better off. It is perceived as an irrelevance in the life of people struggling to survive in the cycle of suffering. Individuals caught up in this situation need hope that things will change now, not at some indeterminate time in a heavenly kingdom. Liberation theology is a step in the right direction, so is progressive theology and praxis. The vital element is that of engagement in the society around us, helping at point of need, but above all striving to engage successfully with those in positions with power to make systemic change.

 It is 40 years since the Church of England published Faith in the City and a little later Faith in the Countryside. Both documents laid out the scale of poverty, destitution, deprivation, marginalisation and discrimination in England. Since then little has been achieved to overcome the misery identified in the reports, although there have been countless other reports, all gathering dust, of the scale of the issues and possible solutions.

Make no mistake: the failure lies with the political process, the failure of governments of all persuasions to instigate and then maintain the changes needed. Governments claim it is all a question of priorities, of use of scarce financial resources, of no discernible public agitation for change. 

For followers of Jesus it is a moral issue, a matter of loving your neighbour, of helping at point of need, but above all demanding social justice and with it concomitant systemic change. Some choose to do so though faith based organisations, others through secular bodies. others through both.  

The problem is the sterling work of the voluntary sector in providing assistance to individuals at point of need, necessary though it is, masks from society and politicians the sheer scale of the misery suffered daily: inflicted by an uncaring political process. The myriad reports inform us of what is wrong, politicians choose to look the other way.

We at St Paul's do respond as resources of time, funding and premises permit.  Locally campaigning to retain the post office as it  was and the Youth Council campaigning currently for a pedestrian crossing on the A264 are examples of St Paul's engagement, the foodbank offering practical support is an illustration of St Paul's responding to need. Could we do more?  A suggestion. A campaign to improve the 281 bus service?

The General Speaks

The Salvation Army General, Lyndon Buckingham, said this recently:

"Amidst the backdrop of increasing uncertainty, violence, hatred and people becoming increasingly vocal and unkind, Christ calls us to be in the world and be different: counter-cultural, radical."

"The world, though it might not want admit it, needs us right now.  This is not the time for us to shrink back, to hide, to circle the wagons and just look after ourselves.  We are witnesses in the world that grace matters, that forgiveness and long-suffering and perseverance count, that mercy and grace shift the world."

"It is the practising of these principles and not the reciting of them that turns communities around.  It is the giving of ourselves fully to it that brings transformation."

In other words the mission of The Salvation Army is expressed through practical action and compassionate living, not just words.

I agree entirely with the thrust of the argument, indeed it reflects much of my thinking concerning love your neighbour by giving assistance at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to bring about social justice.

And yet, I have a nagging doubt.  What does the General mean by counter-cultural and radical?  Jesus certainly was both of these with his concern for the marginalised in the society of his time and his reflections on the  religious, political and social cultures of his time.

What does it mean to a faith body that holds to a conservative evangelical understanding of the bible to be counter-cultural?  How do the words of Lydon Buckingham play out in the context of homophobia and the lack of full inclusion within the Army based on an  individual's sexuality and partner relationships?  Next week I am meeting two Army officers who until recently led a corps (church) with an inclusive agenda.  I'll seek to tease out their thinking.

Difficult times

We live in difficult times. 

Hold up a placard in public proclaiming support for Palestine Action and you will be arrested for supporting a terrorist organisation: yet the government continues to offer succour and material support to Israel.  Israel's actions in Gaza are condemned as genocide in a recent United Nations report.

Should you be transgender your life is being made difficult by a decision of the Supreme Court and subsequent proposed guidance by the  Equality and Human Rights Commission.  The proposed guidance is opposed by over 650 business organisations and organisations compaigning for liberty and equality.

Gay individuals in the Church of England look askance af the turgid progress (if any) of  the Living in Loving and Faith saga. 

And then there is the resurgence of right wing ideology manifested in the electoral gains made by Reform and the recent march in London by right-wingers.  This march was soured by violence from a minority: in stark contrast to the placard waving protesters supporting Palestine Action.

Added to all this is the pantomime, or is it tragedy, of the government. The Deputy Prime Minister resigned, the Ambassador to the United States of America resigned and advisors are dropping like flies. Will the Prime Minister be next: the vultures are circling.

Then there is the difficult economic situation with a stagnant economy, upheaval over proposed changes to social security, increased homelessness 

Plenty of scope for us to be glum, despondent, even depressed. 

What does a follower  of Jesus do in these circumstances, this conjery, this litany of upset and potentially disaster in our society?  Are we powerless?

The principle of  'love your neighbour' requires us to help people at point of need.  We have also to campaign for systemic change to deliver social justice.  It is a hard road to follow, many obstacles are placed in the way.  Those with power will do their utmost to defend their position.   But win we can,  sometimes.  So, let's not be glum, despondent or depressed, but fight on either by ourselves or in concert with others. For those professing to follow the way of Jesus, it is a demand placed on us:  not simply intellectual assent, but a call to action. 

The Golden Rule

 God it is beyond description, it is the subject of our imagination and searching for explanation of how the universe came into existence, what it is and our place in it. Humanity's enquiry has elicited some understanding of the universe but can we comprehend its vastness? I cannot even begin to provide an answer to the God question. I know my mortality: soon enough I shall die,  and then what?  

So I turn from the unknown and direct my energies to consideration of and campaigning on concrete issues: combating poverty, deprivation, racism, misogyny, marginalisation, discrimination and exclusion, not only at point of need but also campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice. In this endeavour the way of life concepts attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels together with ideas developed by Liberation Theology theologians such as Gustavo Gutiérrez and Jurgen Moltmann have been the major influences on my thinking and action.

Christians do not have a monopoly of the principle 'love your neighbour'.  Worldwide similar expressions of desired behaviour are to be found in a broad range of faiths, as well as in the secular world. The principle known as the Golden Rule, promotes a high standard of ethical behaviour.  It is a consequence of my background, experience etc that I approach the Golden Rule from a Christian perspective.

In Matthew  7:12 we read:

     'In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.'

This principle may be construed in a number of ways:

It is a positive statement of how we should behave towards others and what we should hope for from them.

It is a negative statement of what we should not do to others as we would hope others would not do to us.

If we see our neighbour in need we should assist them as we hope they would help us.

If we perceive our neighbour is in poverty, discriminated against or excluded, then we would not accept this for ourselves and therefore should seeking systemic change to systems promoting or causing social Injustice.

Danger ahead.

 

Paul Marshall owns the Spectator political magazine and the television station GB News.  At one time he sought to own The Daily Telegraph.  All pursue right-wing agendas.

According to Wikipedia  'Marshall has given at least £10 million to the Church Revitalisation Trust to plant new churches in the Holy Trinity Brompton network, which as of 2024 has over 100 churches.  A source inside the CRT described it as "promoting an evangelical agenda to the masses", and as an "antidote" to the "liberal wokery" of the Church of England.'

Recently he has been in the United States encouraging conservative Evangelicals with media influence to  promote MAGA  style policies in The UK.  

This linking together of politics, media and faith influence must be a cause for concern for those who follow the way of Jesus, the way of love and promote inclusion for all, social justice for all and an end to marginalisation, discrimination and poverty.  

  

On understanding scripture

 Don Cupitt is correct: God is believed wrongly by many to be a a metaphysical /anthropomorphic entity  Beliefs are human creations, not god given. It follows from this that the bible is not the infallible word of God, literally, symbolically or metaphorically.  

Marcus Borg emphasises the bible is of human creation. It is valuable insofar as it sets out the teaching attributed to Jesus as that time. But, it is not fixed in the time it was written, it is for us to determine our understanding of the teaching in and for our own time. The teaching is not a set of rigid, fixed, unchangeable rules, rather it sets out broad, general principles capable of adaptation to changing cirumstances. The teaching is not in some musty, old, dead document rotting away in the mire of irrelevance: no, it is a living document assisting us to show the basic concept of love by our actions.

 I subscribe to the postmodernist ideas of Jacques Derrida: in particular his thesis that words mean what the reader or hearer decides they mean. Such understanding may or may not accord with the intention of the author. Language is fluid, not rigid nor fixed in any timeframe. Thus ideas and concepts may mean one thing to their author: their interpretation and understanding is entirely within the domain of the recipient. It is contexual only within a specific timeframe. This suggests to me that seeking to understand scripture by reference to its historical context is a fruitless exercise, as is the quest for the historical Jesus.

Unsurprisingly there is diversity of opinion as to the import of passages of scripture. Can there be a literal meaning? How can we know the intention of the orginal author? Is the bible a sound, unchanging, repository of theological 'truth'. Or is it evidence of past thinking, worthy of study to assist us in grappling with the present day  issues of belief and faith?

Added to the mix is disputation as to style. Is it metaphor, literal, narrative, prose, poetry, story, fable,  allusion, symbolism etc.?

A few quotations:

The Christian story does not drop from heaven fully written. It grew and developed over a period of forty-two to seventy years. This is not what most Christians have been to taught to think...Christianity is an evolving story. It was never, even in the New Testament, a finished story.

JOHN SHELBY SPONG.

I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such it contained their understandings and affirmations.

MARCUS J BORG

My point is not that these ancient people told literal stories and we are not smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.

JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN

I read scripture to better understand the principle of love your neighbour attributed to Jesus as  set out in the synoptic gospels.  It is not be to read as an instruction manual nor as a fixed set of narrow rules, rather it is a wide-ranging principle capable of broad interpretation and application.  Sadly many christians do not accept this as they continue to support policies of marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination in our society.