Stuffed. Dr Helen King writes....

The article below is an excellent commentary by Dr Helen King on the proceedings of the General Synod on 13 July 2026.  The failure of the House of Bishops to vote in favour of the amended substantive motion, only a few minutes after voting for the amendment, is staggering, not simply the sea-change in voting intentions but more importantly the effect this has had on the gay constituency within the Church.  

The Church of England publishes how every member of General Synod voted on all amendments and motions.  We await the document with interest.

Posted on July 13, 2026 by fluff35

Back in February, I submitted a Private Member’s Motion (a PMM):

‘That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.’

Any member of Synod can submit a PMM and mine was aimed at ending this very bruising Synod quinquennium with a positive pastoral statement about the invaluable but apparently unvalued contribution of LBGTQIA+ people to the Church. All those PMMs which had reached the threshold of 100 votes have been scheduled at this July Synod, so this morning mine was debated.

Back when I first tabled the motion, there was a certain amount of conservative kerfuffle online. They didn’t like the word ‘intimate’. I observe that we seem to be hung up on ‘intimacy’. We witnessed an example of this during Synod Questions on Friday. Question 14 was from Mrs Anna de Castro (Sheffield) asking the Chair of the Faith and Order Commission: ‘In the context of the Living in Love and Faith process, what meaning has FAOC given to the word “intimate”?’ And the response she was given? That “FAOC has not found it necessary to explore the meaning of intimate and to provide a more technical definition to the word than offered by its common usage.”

Common usage, eh? My first thought was the usage in “an intimate little Italian restaurant”. During a catch-up on the tennis, I saw a mixed doubles match in which the commentator assured us that someone on the other side of the net “knows both players intimately”. And then there’s “intimate care” which is all about toilets and continence.

Yet in these endless debates, some members of Synod seem to think “intimate” is all about bodies and pleasure. If you say “sexually intimate”, maybe that’s a reasonable interpretation. But I didn’t: just look at the words of my motion. That didn’t stop conservatives, both before today and during the debate on the PMM, telling me that I meant it. No. In the supporting paper which I was asked to put in before Synod met, I tried to make this clear; I wrote that “if we reduce intimacy to bodies, and indeed to specific acts of those bodies, we are not doing justice to the depth of our need for trust and closeness. ‘Intimate’ is used in this motion to recognise that deep, devoted, passionate relationships of many kinds exist, and always have existed, and that includes a range of types of physical contact. In a response to another Synod question (July 2023 Synod Q72), the then-Bishop of London helpfully noted that ‘LLF has always tried to recognise that the expression of sexual intimacy between two people cannot be reduced to a small set of defined actions.’”

My motion was deliberately short. Of course “no fundamental objections” was a reference to the 1975 motion which began the journey towards women priests. Looking at my motion, conservatives were complaining that they did have objections. But of course, some people did in 1975 too; and they simply voted against. However, I heard the concern, and in the time between submitting the motion and coming to the debate, several of us worked on trying to address it. Should we spell out the presence in the church of other views? By the time amendments had to be put in, we had come up with an amended form of the motion which we thought addressed this, and more. So that was submitted by Chris Dalliston, the Dean of Peterborough, appearing as item 54 on the agenda:

That this Synod:

(a) affirms that all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ;

(b) delights in the lives and ministries of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England;

(c) recognises a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England, on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, and;

(d) recognises that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry.

So, basic pastoral message, plus recognition that there are other views within the C of E.

As I was not able to be in York, the motion was moved by Professor Muriel Robinson, who opened by talking about her friends David and Stuart, who have been together since theological college. In their early stages of ministry there was no problem in accepting their relationship, but as they were increasingly badly treated both left ministry, and one gave up on faith. This is a very sad story, and it is not uncommon. Why does the church do this to people?

The chair of the debate chose to hear at an early stage from proposers of amendments to give us a sense of what they were about. The first of those, item 53, was from the Chair of the House of Laity, Jamie Harrison. It is quite long so I shall just summarise it here. He aimed to remove all the pastoral focus of the original motion, making it instead into a brief statement of where we are now; with the Prayers of Love and Faith permitted in existing services and… ah, that’s the problem. There’s nothing else to put on that list. Because nothing else has happened in the direction of welcoming LGBTQIA+ people in the C of E. So the rest of the motion restated that “sexual intimacy” properly belongs within marriage – which was odd as that moves us into opposite-sex relationships, which were not within the scope of my motion. The amendment also tried to reduce the impact of “no fundamental objections” by claiming that there are also “many” people who aren’t certain what they think, and others who think same-sex relationships “run counter to the message of scripture and the Christian tradition”. It ended by mentioning the new Working Group for which we voted in February (although it hasn’t started meeting yet as so far it has only got a chair; no members). 

There were many excellent speeches, including Adam Kendry, an armed forces rep, noting that it is now 26 years since the armed forces got their act together on accepting lesbian and gay people; Anna Norman-Walker, pointing out that the motion was not about liturgy and doctrine, just about the ordinary people in our parishes; Bishop Nick Chamberlain, the first out gay bishop, who as an acting bishop doesn’t have a vote in Synod, pointing out just how bad the times are for LGBTQIA+ people; Graham Kirk-Spriggs, a vicar, on his experience as the only gay person in the room being told “fornicators” won’t inherit the kingdom of God; Martin Auton-Lloyd noted that, in his deanery, there are more clergy in civil partnerships than in marriage. A key theme was how lesbian and gay clergy and lay people ask not for change but simply for recognition of their lives and ministries; as Graham put it, where is he, a lifelong Anglican affirmed? Why is he not included?

There were some rather odd speeches from conservatives, worrying about whether “intimacy” is an ambiguous word (read my supporting paper…); holding up the “is it a duck? is it a rabbit?” optical illusion (don’t ask; but there is an excellent discussion of its use in the debate this morning here); assuming sexual and romantic are the same thing; conjuring up the image of the Church as the Bride of Christ but with a muddy dress (?); and a speech by a traditionalist young woman who is certain that she should not enter a same-sex relationship. That’s, of course, up to her; it doesn’t help those who have found security and growth in such a relationship. 

The voting was complicated. When Jamie Harrison’s amendment (item 53) came to the vote, it was defeated. There was a Vote by Houses (meaning that something has to pass in all three of them) which went:

Bishops 17 in favour, 7 against, 6 abstentions

Clergy 78 in favour, 90 against, 4 abstentions

Laity 88 in favour, 93 against, 1 abstention

So it failed in two houses and thus failed overall. 

When Chris Dalliston’s amendment (item 54) was voted on, however, it passed in all three houses:

Bishops 12 in favour, 8 against, 8 abstentions

Clergy 100 in favour, 68 against, 4 abstentions

Laity 102 in favour, 76 against, 4 abstentions.

Bearing in mind that this amendment entirely replaced my original short motion, you’d perhaps think that the voting on it would be replicated when we went on to vote on ‘the motion as amended’; after all, this had exactly the same words! 

No.

On the final, amended, motion, we voted: 

Bishops 11 in favour, 14 against, 4 abstentions


Clergy 93 in favour, 79 against, 0 abstentions

Laity 101 in favour, 83 against, 0 abstentions.

Assuming that there were roughly the same people in the room or on zoom, some of the clergy seem to have decided they were against rather than in favour, but the overall vote result was a pass; however, the bishops changed their votes in a way that led to the motion failing, because of the House of Bishops. This is very baffling and perhaps some time we will find out what was going on.

In the later debate on Trust, Professor Veronica Hope Hailey commented on how very very odd the C of E is, although what she was thinking about were its structures at national and diocesan level alongside its reliance on volunteers at parish level. She observed that it’s not clear who is in charge; bishops claim that they only have soft power but then look at them at a coronation. I’d add, voting by Houses can also show their power. She noted that Synod just goes round in circles; and that’s what we did on my PMM. 

The day ended with Bishop Robert Springett updating us on safeguarding. A key comment was that safety depends on a culture that will not abide theology being used for coercive purposes. He also supported mandatory reporting rather than reliance on the Seal of the Confessional; this was pushed back on by Bishop Philip North. There was a question about what counts as spiritual abuse, which as I heard it came rather close to asking for support for conversion practices; about spiritual direction; about why not all Lessons Learned Reviews are published; and about the training which has to be carried out in parishes to help people to volunteer as parish safeguarding officers.  

Long day, lots to think about; not least that the bishops suddenly felt unable to support saying that “all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ”? I am guessing that this is their problem, as I cannot see that they would fail to agree that we have a range of views in the C of E. What message is this sending to those faithful queer people who are clergy and laity – and bishops! – in the C of E?

Dr. Helen King

13th July 2013.

Stuffed by the House of Bishops.

 On 13th July the General Synod of the Church of England considered the following Private Members' Motion in the name of Professor Helen King.

‘That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.’

The following amendment to the motion was proposed. It deleted all after 'That this Synod'.

a) affirm that all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ;

 b) delight in the lives and ministries of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England;

 c) recognise a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England, on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, and;

 d) recognise that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry.

The amendment was carried, voting being as follows:

                     IN FAVOUR AGAINST 

 Bishops       12                      8 

Clergy        100                    68 

Laity          102                    76 

8 abstentions were recorded in the House of Bishops, 4 abstentions in the House of Clergy, and 4 abstentions in the House of Laity.

This wording became the substantive motion.  Voting was as follows:

                 IN FAVOUR    AGAINST

 Bishops       11                    14 

Clergy          93                    79 

Laity          101                    83

 4 abstentions were recorded in the House of Bishops, 0 abstentions in the House of Clergy, and 0 abstentions in the House of Laity.

Thus the motion was lost.  

When the original motion was published John Dunnett, National Director, Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC),had this to say:

“This motion matters. While it might be viewed by some as committing General Synod to ‘nothing in particular’, this motion shows that the revisionists will find new and different ways to continually push their agenda – away from Scripture, away from our Church’s doctrine and towards liberal change – even when the House of Bishops is not doing so. And were the motion to find support it could be seen as paving the way for further change.

“The big question is how the bishops and indeed the new Archbishop will respond. Will the Archbishop see it as an opportunity to allow Synod to express its mind, or would she prefer the process to be steered by the House of Bishops, and therefore encourage her colleagues to vote against the motion?”

On the face of it Dunnett and his constituency have succeeded, but at the expense of the gay constituency.  The gay community has been stuffed by the bishops. Shocking, 

The voting in the Houses of Clergy and Laity is indicative of the direction of travel towards inclusion.  Voting for membership of the new General Synod takes place later this year.  Will the result of the election maintain the status quo, accentuate the direction of travel, or reverse it?  And what of the bishops: unelected and unaccountable.  

With individuals

https://t4cg.substack.com/p/correction-what-about-me-lost-sheep?

The link is to an excellent article by John Clifton. Echoes of ideas considered by Jon Swales and Samuel Wells.

Groucho Marx

 

Two Groucho Marx quotes:

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.

Both may be applied to many politicians on the national stage where U-turns and dissembling are art forms. The first rule of politics to my mind is: say anything that will help you to be re-elected.  My cynicism is matched only by that of politicians plying their trade. 

 

Does the above apply only to politicians? Sadly, no.  The whole notion of public relations is built on the shifting sands of dissembling, evasion and misinformation.  Governments, companies, statutory agencies, churches have thriving public relations departments or employ agencies to do their dirty work. All have systems in place dedicated to promoting their organisations in a positive light and dismissing, downplaying and ignoring questions and comments deemed by their employers to be a potential threat. 

My question is a simple one.  To what extent are the quotations attributed to Marx applicable to the Church of  England?  Think safeguarding, misogyny. mixed ecology, unity and sexuality.  

Questions.

Simple questions, but are the answers straightforward?

Should faith groups consciously use the provision of foodbanks and other means of alleviating poverty as opportunities for evangelism?  

A follow-up question.  In tackling issues of social justice: marginalisation, discrimination, exclusion,  racism etc should faith groups concentrate solely on the issues to the exclusion of evangelism?

One more question.  In providing pastoral support to an individual should the support relate to the issue in hand without recourse to any evangelistic input?

I ask these questions as there is debate concerning how churches should engage in social issues/justice. Is the provision and campaigning a launchpad for evangelism?  Or is the provision self-standing: following the teaching and actions attributed to Jesus by the authors of the synoptic gospels? In other words: why do churches engage in tackling social issues, what is the motivation behind it? 

Below is an article by Jon Swales.  Excellent.  Consider in the context of the questions asked above. 

'Throughout his earthly ministry, Jesus did not simply describe the Kingdom of God—he enacted it. He preached, “The Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news,” and then he lived it: healing the sick, forgiving sin, welcoming the overlooked, confronting what dehumanises, and laying down his life in self-giving love. 

This Kingdom—the reign of God—is not removed from the real world. It presses into it. It speaks into how we order our common life—socially, politically, economically, standing over and against systems that crush and exclude, and gathering a people shaped by mercy, justice, and compassion. 

Jesus has inaugurated this Kingdom and will bring it to completion—a world without domination, without injustice, without tears, where there is a tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations. But for now, we live in the tension of the now and not yet, and in that tension, allegiance to Jesus is worked out in the real.

There is something in Jesus’ ministry that is often softened, or quietly set aside. He did not only comfort the poor; he also confronted the accumulation of wealth. In his opening sermon—the Nazareth manifesto—Jesus reaches back to Jubilee, not as metaphor but as memory: debts released, land restored, lives reset—a loosening of the grip of accumulation so that the poor might breathe again. 

This thread does not sit at the edges of his teaching; it runs through it.

'Blessed are the poor.' 'Woe to you who are rich.' The man building bigger barns while others go without, the rich man stepping over Lazarus at the gate, the call to relinquish, to give, to release. 

This is not a side note in the Gospel; it is part of its centre of gravity.

To be clear, this is not an argument against profit, nor against differences in pay that reflect responsibility, skill, or risk. It is a question of scale. At what point does the gap become so wide that it is no longer incidental, but revealing? At what point does it begin to tell the truth about what we value—and who we do not? We tend to avoid that question, because once you see it clearly, it is difficult to unsee.

Take something ordinary. I saw a post recently about someone going into a supermarket, filling a basket, walking out without paying, and then taking it all straight to a food bank before handing themselves in at a police station. I’m not sure what to do with that, if I’m honest. I’m not against protest, and there are times when civil disobedience matters, but this kind of thing doesn’t quite sit right with me. Still, it made me stop and look again.

It got me thinking about supermarkets—Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s—the kind of places most of us move through every week without really thinking about how they are put together. If you look into it even a little, the gap is hard to ignore. Someone on a checkout might be earning £13 or £14 an hour. It is steady work, necessary work—the kind that kept things going when everything else slowed. And yet it is not uncommon for people in those roles to rely on Universal Credit just to make it through the month. Some will visit a food bank; they don’t always say they’re going—sometimes it just becomes another errand you don’t explain. A person can spend an entire afternoon scanning a week’s worth of food for others—the steady beep, item after item—and still go home unsure how they will pay for their own.

Working—and still not enough.

Then you look at the other end. Tesco’s CEO was paid about £9.9 million last year, and Sainsbury’s CEO around £4.9 million—figures you almost read twice just to be sure. Tesco’s own reporting puts the pay ratio at roughly 400:1, which is difficult to picture in any meaningful way, but it effectively means a CEO can earn in a year what a typical worker would not earn across a lifetime, or several. The issue is not that these roles are identical; they are not. The issue is the distance between them. 

Because beyond a certain point, disparity does more than differentiate—it distorts. It begins to signal whose contribution really counts, and whose does not, quietly shaping our sense of what is normal.

And then there is profit. Tesco made around £2.8 billion in operating profit last year, and Sainsbury’s just under £1 billion. These are large, successful businesses doing what they are designed to do. But set alongside that is something harder to ignore. The Trussell Trust distributed just over 3.1 million emergency food parcels in 2023/24—the highest number on record, with many going to families with children. More and more, those needing this support are in work.

That is the part that lingers.

Not just poverty, but in-work poverty—people earning, contributing, showing up, and still not quite managing to get by. You begin to notice the overlap: the same towns, the same high streets, supermarkets that are busy and functioning, and nearby—often closer than you’d think—food banks trying to keep pace with demand. I don’t think profit, in itself, is the issue. But when profits are measured in billions, and at the same time millions of food parcels are being handed out, it becomes difficult to pretend those realities sit easily together.

Or perhaps more honestly, that they do—and that’s the problem.

Jesus spoke into a world marked by inequality too. The structures were different, but the patterns are familiar: wealth concentrated among elites—landowners, tax collectors, those aligned with imperial power—while many lived close to the edge, vulnerable to debt, loss, and hunger. Into that world, Jesus speaks plainly. He names the poor as blessed, warns the rich, and imagines an economy shaped not by endless accumulation but by release, restoration, and enough.

When we look at our own world, the parallels are difficult to ignore. The language has changed and the mechanisms are more complex, but the gap remains—and in many places it is widening. In the UK, we have normalised a quiet contradiction: people in work who are still poor, food banks woven into the fabric of communities, hardship that rarely makes headlines but is felt in kitchens, in compromises, in sleepless nights. Alongside this sits extraordinary accumulation at the top. Again, the question is not whether business, enterprise, or reward are good—they can be—but whether the scale of inequality we are living with can be squared with the Kingdom that Jesus announces.

At a certain point, it is not simply a tension to manage.

It is a contradiction to face.

This is not separate from the wider crisis we are living through. The same patterns—accumulation without limit, growth without restraint—are shaping not only our economies but our relationship with the earth itself. We are already living with the consequences: floods, fires, instability. And again, it is the poorest who bear the heaviest weight, those with the least margin absorbing the greatest shock.

So the question returns—not as abstraction, but as invitation. What does it mean to take Jesus seriously here—not as an idea or a slogan, but as Lord? 

It begins with seeing clearly, refusing to look away from the scale of inequality we have learned to call normal. It means allowing the words of Jesus to land with their full weight, even where they unsettle us. And then, in ways both small and costly—and sometimes inconvenient in ways we would rather avoid—it means learning to live otherwise: with generosity that interrupts accumulation, with attention to those being edged out, with communities that measure worth differently.

Because we are not neutral in this.

We are being formed—by the market, or by the Kingdom.'

Rev'd Jon Swales

 

Reconstruction: building afresh

Below is an article written in 2024 by the Revd. Jon Swales, Team Vicar at St. George's Church, Leeds and the Founder of Lighthouse West Yorkshire.  I commend it to you.  It brings out with clarity the important point that deconstruction is not a negative dead end.   It is, for many, the precursor to a life following the teaching and actions ascribed to Jesus by the authors of the synoptic gospels.

                             -----------

Deconstruction isn't merely a buzzword; it's a profound existential journey that countless souls embark upon. It's about shedding the old, the familiar, the once-unchallenged bastions of theological certainty. We're talking about those systems and structures that held us tight, promising safety and solace in a world teeming with uncertainties. But now, they lie discarded, their foundations cracked under the weight of relentless questioning.

For many of us, it wasn't just a matter of intellectual curiosity; it was a soul-deep reckoning. The neatly packaged doctrines, the tidy theological explanations—they simply couldn't bear the weight of our doubts and dilemmas. We found ourselves wrestling with the thorniest of questions, questions that refused to be silenced by pat answers.

Do we truly believe in a hell where souls suffer for eternity in torment? Can we reconcile an all-powerful, all-loving God with the staggering injustice and suffering that pervade our world? And what about scripture—can we still call it God's word when it recounts tales of divine commands to annihilate entire populations? In the face of climate breakdown, why is the church complicit by silence and lifestyle in unrestrained capitalism and consumerism?

But it's not just about theology; it's about the lived experience of faith. It's about the glaring gaps between the ideals preached from pulpits and the harsh realities we encounter in our spiritual leaders and communities. For some, it's the failure of the church to embody the radical compassion of Jesus. It's the wounds inflicted by those that were meant to offer healing and hope.

In the midst of this upheaval, deconstruction becomes a deeply personal journey. For some, it's a process of refinement, of sifting through the rubble of our beliefs to uncover something truer, something more authentic. Yet, for others, it's also a raw and messy ordeal—a wrecking ball that shatters the carefully constructed edifices of our souls.

But amidst the refinement and the rubble, there's also possibility—the chance to rebuild, to reimagine, to rediscover faith in its most honest and unadorned form. Deconstruction isn't just about tearing down; it's about making space for something new to emerge, something more resilient, more compassionate, more true.

In my journey of deconstruction, I have found life-giving strength in the person and work of Jesus. He, in his beauty and grace, is my compass, guide, and consolation. The church may fail, doctrines once concrete dogma are now challenged and malleable, but Christ is compelling.

Another way of putting this is that love alone is credible and offers a beauty that leads us onwards . My former beliefs and dogma have been weighed in the scales and found wanting, but love is my journey, my guide and my destination. Christ, the one who is love, holds my affection, and he, praise God, holds me.

- Jon Swales 2024

the role of scripture

Below is an article by Jim Palmer.  I concur with his conclusion.

Jim Palmer 

People will often say, “My authority is the Bible.”

The reality is usually more complicated. Their authority is rarely the Bible alone. It is the Bible as interpreted through the theological tradition, community, and assumptions that formed them.

There has never been a singular, universally accepted interpretation of the Bible. Throughout Christian history, believers have disagreed about nearly every major doctrine associated with the faith. Christians have debated the nature of Jesus, the character of God, the reality of hell, the meaning of salvation, the doctrine of original sin, the Trinity, free will, predestination, and countless other theological questions. 

The idea that there exists a timeless and universally recognized form of “Biblical Christianity” becomes difficult to sustain once one becomes familiar with the history of Christian thought.

What one community regards as biblical truth, another regards as error. What one denomination treats as essential doctrine, another dismisses as theological speculation. The text has remained relatively stable. The interpretations have not.

This should not surprise us. Every act of interpretation is shaped long before a person opens a sacred text. Readers bring assumptions about what the Bible is, what kind of authority it possesses, and how it should be read. Some approach scripture as literal history. Others see myth, metaphor, poetry, and symbol. Some seek certainty. Others seek wisdom. Some welcome revision in light of new information, while others regard changing one's mind as a threat to faith itself. The text never arrives alone. Neither does the reader.

What many people fail to recognize is that interpretation is not something that happens after reading the Bible. Interpretation begins before reading the Bible. The lens precedes the reading. The framework precedes the conclusion.

This is why appeals to “the Bible clearly teaches” don't work. What seems clear to one person isn't to someone standing within a different theological tradition. Human beings have a remarkable tendency to mistake their interpretation of reality for reality itself. Religion is no exception.

Ironically, Jesus appears to have understood this dynamic better than many of his followers.

The religious culture in which Jesus lived was deeply anchored in sacred texts and authoritative interpretations. Yet Jesus rarely taught through systematic theology. He taught through stories, images, parables, questions, and encounters drawn from ordinary life.

Again and again, his sharpest criticisms were aimed not at scripture itself but at those who had become trapped within their interpretations of scripture. The issue was not the text itself but the assumption that possessing the text was equivalent to possessing truth.

This helps illuminate one of the most striking statements attributed to him: “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, but you refuse to come to me to have life.”

The criticism remains relevant. A sacred text can become a substitute for the reality toward which it points. A map can become more important than the territory. A finger can become more important than the moon. A book can become more important than life itself.

This is the danger of bibliolatry: mistaking a witness to reality for reality itself.

Viewed differently, the Bible becomes far more interesting than either its fundamentalist defenders or its dismissive critics often acknowledge. It is not a systematic theology. It is not a doctrinal handbook. It is a sprawling literary anthology composed over many centuries by numerous authors wrestling with the deepest questions human beings have ever asked.

Across its many voices, the Bible wrestles with the enduring questions of human existence: suffering, meaning, justice, power, love, mortality, transcendence, and the challenge of how to live.

The Bible contains poetry, myth, history, wisdom literature, prophecy, political critique, letters, visions, and stories. It preserves humanity at its noblest and humanity at its most destructive. It contains beauty, violence, compassion, tribalism, liberation, oppression, wisdom, and folly. Like humanity itself, it is complicated.

Many modern critics assume the Bible deserves ridicule because some readers insist that every story must be interpreted literally. Yet this criticism often grants fundamentalism the very assumption it seeks to challenge. The deeper question is not whether Jonah was literally swallowed by a fish. The deeper question is why a story about resistance, avoidance, transformation, and reluctant responsibility continues to resonate thousands of years later.

The enduring power of these stories may lie less in their factual status than in their ability to illuminate dimensions of human experience that remain recognizable across cultures and generations.

Yet even if one grants all of this, the Bible cannot function as the ultimate authority for a human life. No description can fully contain reality. No formulation can exhaust truth. No sacred text can relieve us of the responsibility of direct encounter.

SSacred texts can inform us. They can challenge us. They can inspire us. They can deepen our understanding. But they cannot do our seeing for us.

At some point every person must decide whether authority resides primarily in inherited interpretations or in the difficult and ongoing work of direct engagement with reality itself.

The deepest authority is not found in a text, a tradition, an institution, or an expert. It emerges through conscience, awareness, experience, discernment, and an ever-deepening relationship with reality.

Sacred texts may accompany that journey.

They may illuminate it.

They may enrich it.

But they cannot live it for us.

Sooner or later, each of us must decide whether we will merely inherit our understanding of reality or participate in discovering it for ourselves.

Jim Palmer

Prophetic Outsider

I am an Anglican in a diocese mostly conservative evangelical in its theological outlook. This makes me feel I am an outsider as I advance ideas from radical, liberal, liberation, progressive, postmodern and deconstructivist perspectives. The ideas I espouse have been described as prophetic, or was that pathetic?

I have been an outsider since I commenced my studies at secondary school and this  continued through university and employment in education and local government, my involvement in local politics and my relationship with organised religion.  It is as though I have been looking in, participating, but distant.  This has nothing to do with shyness or ability to relate to people.  Rather, it is my reluctance to sign up unreservedly to the ethos of an  organisation, whether it be an education establishment, a council, a political party or a church

This article contains little, probably nothing that is original. It is commentary and observation. It is emphasised that I am not a theologian, my discipline is law, although I did manage to scrape a diploma in theology awarded by a prestigious university

I choose to seek to follow in the way of Jesus, to follow and apply his teaching, to follow and act like him: above all to live out his statement to love our neighbour. In other words how I relate and with others to the principle of love, to the concept of inclusion, to the elimination of poverty. I have no desire to follow church doctrine, dogma, or tradition, or be bound by literal interpretation of scripture.

The life, teaching and actions attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels are the product of multiple edits of material, mostly oral tradition. They are an human construct: not given or inspired by an unknown metaphysical 'entity'. They act as a guide to assist us on our journey to treat all people equally: they are not a user manual to be pored over and applied literally.

To follow Jesus in word and deed requires an individual to think and engage in actions motivated by loving-kindness. Loving-kindness is not an attribute only of Christians: it is recognisable in other faiths and in individuals of a secular disposition. Loving-kindness is unconditional love rooted in the concept of the interconnectedness of all people. As a concept it is closely related to love your neighbour and the Golden Rule: treat others as you would want to be treated. It is an attitude of mind that translates into action: to assist individuals at point of need and to campaign for social justice. 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 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.

There was a period when I was divorced, penniless, homeless, unemployed and lonely. The effect on me was one of despondency bordering on depression. Live for today and dread what tomorrow might bring. This experience brought home to me the inadeqacy, indeed downright failure, of the statutory sector to provide meaningful assistance at my point of need. Also it highlighted the importance of systemic change to overcome the social injustice ruining the lives of so many individuals. The help I did receive came from the voluntary sector, from secular and faith charities, importantly from individuals working on a paid or voluntary basis for these organisations.

During this time I witnessed, indeed was a member of, a community in an area of multiple deprivation. Poor housing, sink schools, inadequate health facllities, woeful public transport, and grinding poverty, all with no hope of improvement. My response initially was to engage in local politics. However it was obvious very quickly that local government moves very slowly and is constrained severely by central government fiscal, economic and social policies.

It was at this juncture I became involved with an umbrella church organisation promoting social responsibility. Over a long period the organisation supported faith groups engaged in meeting the immediate needs of individuals: food, shelter, clothing, debt advice, as well as campaigning for a credit union and engaging in the development of the local community plan. The activities of the organisation were underpinned by the theological imperative to love your neighbour and reference to Old and New Testament verses expressing the necessity of helping people at point of need and  also for systemic change to achieve social justice.

My current thinking has ingredients from inter alia, humanism, existentialism, postmodernism, radical, liberal, progressive, liberation and deconstructivist theology. I describe it as a melange (or should it read 'mess'?).  My ideas are influenced by non theological factors. Politically I subscribe to democratic socialism. Earlier I referred to my  chaotic personal life of many years ago: divorce, destitution, sofa-surfing homelessness, and unemployment: all concurrently.  These experiences still deeply influence my actions and my political and theological opinions.  

We should escape from a theological silo mentality  by seeking to understand interactions between religion, politics, economics, sociology, ethics, law, environment etc.  Theology should not be about doctrine, dogma creeds and biblical interpretation to the exclusion of  understanding and application of said to the realities of life for individuals, a reality shaped by myriad factors.  We can apply  theological ideas without recourse, reliance, or reference to scripture interpretation, church doctrine, dogma or creeds.  We do not need guardians, sentries or gatekeepers of church or academia to understand and apply our theological ideas.  It is for us, and us alone, to determine the relationship of theological concepts to our own lives and how our lives affect our theology.  The relationship is symbiotic.  It must be remembered that our lives are shaped by our experience, reason, tradition, relationships, work, poverty, family, political opinions etc and these factors impinge of our thoughts and actions, theological and otherwise, in many instances being what Oliver Wendell Holmes called inarticulate major premises.

If there is an entity we name as 'God' it is beyond human imagination, incapable of definition or description or symbolism. Judaic and christian scripture perceives God as being transcendent, supernatural, metaphysical and anthropomorphic.  Human supposition is opinion, not fact.  The scriptures are not the divine outpourings of God.  Marcus J  Borg states it well: 

 '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, statements not coming directly or somewhat directly from God.....I realised that whatever "divine revelation" and the "inspiration of the Bible" meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority.'

Colin Coward expresses brilliantly how the gospels came into being, how they are used by the Church of England and argues for fundamental change in attitude:

 'Reflecting on the Holy Week and Easter stories over the past weekend, I have done so not thinking or believing that the Gospels are verbatim accounts given by, let alone written by those who witnessed these events. They are edited and re-edited stories based on oral accounts that had been told and retold and embroidered by the Jesus-followers, the first witnesses, the early Christian gatherings, and those who subsequently joined the Jesus-centred communities. To the oral accounts that formed the basis of the Gospels were added stories told to and re-told and experienced and embroidered by Paul (with the help of Luke).

Belief is a dilemma for me because I do not believe in what is rehearsed in church every Sunday and maintained by the authority of the institution as adequately representing an adequate vision of the Jesus who transforms life and culture. The Gospels and Acts and the history books of the Hebrew scriptures are not accurate, historical accounts of the events and lives they describe. History never is accurate but always a personal view and interpretation. The contemporary “traditional, orthodox, Biblical” ways of our religious systems do not, for me, embrace the essence and heart of Jesus’ life and teachings. We live with ideas about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit that are human interpretations of Jesus’ teachings and essence. All knowledge is developed and communicated through the medium of human understanding. Any distortion or misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus is the result of human failure to comprehend. Throughout my life I have been trying to disentangle the ingredients of distortion and error from healthier wisdom and truth, trying to be more aware of and recapture and synthesise the essence of a holy, sacred, incarnated transformational wisdom that helps us embrace the essence of life in all its fulness.

Whether we are aware or not, all of us are dealing with myths and the development of human interpretations and teachings and corruptions of the divine human we worship as Son of God.

We continue to have great difficulty in distinguishing the unhealthy divine attributions that are fundamental corruptions of Jesus’ life and teachings from the Jesus’ essence that is the catalyst for healthy, creative consciousness that make life in all its fulness into real presence.'

It really does not matter if Jesus was an actual person. What does matter is the principle of love and how we in the twenty-first century CE interpret that principle for the future. Of course the Sermon on the Mount and the parables assist us in our understanding and application of the corpus of statements attributed to Jesus. Borg puts it well:

'Properly understood the Bible is a potential ally to the progressive Christian passion for transformation of ourselves and the world. It is our great heritage. Along with Jesus, to whom it is subordinate, it is our greatest treasure.'

God it is beyond description, it is 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?  

Don Cupitt expressed the following opinion:

You can't slip a knife between them  If you love your fellow human being, you know God and are in God, whereas if you don't love, you don't know God.  The word God doesn't designate a distinct metaphysical being; it is simply Love's name. 

My understanding of what it means to hold to Christian belief has moved away from unquestioning acceptance of church creeds, doctrine and dogma. I do not regard scripture as literally the word of God, nor the result of God's inspiration, and therefore not to be challenged.  Scripture, creeds, doctrine and dogma are human creations in their entireties and not the result of activity by metaphysical or anthropomorphic sources. 

The bible is not a statement of rules set out by an omnipresent god 'out there' that have to be followed if we are to receive the reward of eternal life.   It sets out the ideas of authors over 2000 years ago.  The world has moved on.  Christian belief evolves: it is not set in stone by manuscripts written long ago.  But we should not consign the bible to the scrapheap.  It is a valuable source and resource of concepts. Yet we need to remember that it is of human origin and not to be cloaked with the veneer of the divine.

It is my perception that we have allowed ourselves to be hemmed in by church doctrine and dogma and  by scripture.  No matter what method of biblical interpretation is used: literal, liberal, historical, progressive etc, we permit our ideas to be contained and constrained within the parameters or envelope of scripture. It is as though our understanding of God's purpose is fixed in work composed in a distant past

Surely we can do better than be boxed in by the gatekeepers and guardians of 'the truth'?  We can be inspired by concepts attributed by the authors of the synoptic gospels to a person we know as Jesus, but we need to appreciate that the concepts are subjective and capable of varied interpretations, not objective unchangeable 'truth'.  Flexibility, not rigidity, is the order of the day.

You might think I am a humanist, or even an atheist, in expressing the opinions very briefly outlined above.  I reject both appellations. It is my opinion that inherent within each of us is the power to love: to love our neighbour.  So I argue love is God within us, it is our task to tease out what that means.  Jesus points the way, but his is not the final nor only word.  Our understanding of what it is to love should not be bound by adherence, however interpreted, to scripture. It is not a user manual.  Yes, scripture may assist our use of reason, our understanding, and our actions; it must not be used to prescribe or proscribe how we apply the principle of love your neighbour.  

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 by 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.

I enjoy attending Choral Evensong.

The Church of England Book of Common Prayer (BCP) contains the service of Evening Prayer.  Following the reading from the Old Testament the congregation say or sing Magnificat taken from Luke 1: 46-55.  

The BCP states verses 52-53 as follows:

He hath put down the mighty from their seat: and exalted the humble and meek.

He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Congregations say or sing these words, but do many understand the principles behind them?  How do we, of fail to, apply them in the present to individuals and society?  How do we understand them through the lens of love? We  should understand them as an illustration of love by applying our intelligence and power of reason, not by a rigid, literal, limiting interpretion of individual words.

I do not claim to be a Christian.  Rather, I seek to follow the teaching attributed to Jesus by the authors of the synoptic gospels.  My reading of them is heavily influenced by postmodernism, with particular regard to the ideas formulated by Jacques Derrida.

The synoptic gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus.  No tape-recorders or social media to record verbatim the words he spoke. Instead we have the mysterious 'Q' source, myths, stories, customs handed down from generation to generation to which has to be added the interpretation of this body of information  by the authors and the purpose each of the them had in mind for the material.  Not the firmest foundation on which to develop a theology based on the bible being the inerrant word of God, to be understood and applied literally. 

To understand the reason why Jesus was crucified by the Roman authority in Palestine it is important to tease out why Jesus was perceived to be a political threat to the established  order.  Rome was an occupying power.  It had no problem with conquered nations practicising there indigenous religion and customs, Roman law was the preserve of Roman citizens.  However Rome would not countenance threats to its authority and this is precisely what Jesus was perceived as doing.  On Palm Sunday Jesus rode into Jerusalem to wide acclaim: hosanna they cried.  Here was an existential threat to Roman rule in Palestine, the long-awaited and prophesied servant of God, fomenting an uprising,  who would bring about Jewish independence and sovereignty. The crime was sedition and crucifixion the penalty.

The Roman authority was aided and abetted by the Jewish religious leadership. Jesus had explained on numerous occasions the failure of religious leaders to apply concepts of love and justice as set out in Hebrew scripture.  His elimination would dispose of a threat to their authority.  Yes, Jesus was political, perceived to be a major threat to the stability of the political and religious establishments.  He had to go.

There was a further factor in play:  Jesus is portrayed by the synoptic gospel authors as having challenged economic and social orders, which of course, had political implications.  Hebrew scripture has many exhortations relating to caring for the poor and for systemic change to achieve social justice.  These themes continue in the synoptic gospels: the Sermon on the Mount, the Magnificat, the parables, the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself and following Jesus to bring heaven on earth.  All were threats to the established faith, political and social orders and hierarchies.  They had a political dimension as statements of the need for fundamental change in the ordering of society.

Those of us who have a progressive/liberation theology mindset take these teachings attributed to Jesus and seek to apply the concepts to today's societies.  But, the danger is that we may take a patronising or paternalitic approach, we may act as gatekeepers or guardians of the 'truth'.  In other words our approach often is deductive. Instead we need to take an inductive approach: ask the marginalised, poor and excluded what the teaching of Jesus means to them: not tell them what it means for them. 

The concepts attributed to Jesus by the authors of the synoptic gospels draw on a rich vein of social concern to be discerned in Jewish scripture appropriated to Christianity as the Old Testament.  It is concern for the poor, the marginalised, the discriminated against, the excluded.  It is a call not only to help at point of need but also to change societal structures to overcome the issues.  The teaching of Jesus is not a manual for applying a set of rules: it is a collection of broad principles capable of evolving and developing to meet the challenges of today's society.

To challenge the status quo, to demand change is to challenge  society's priorities, prejudices, allocation of resources.  It is a challenge to the political process, to faith, economic and social structures.  The Jesus as portrayed by the authors of the synoptic gospels delivered a radical political message.  

As his followers so should we.  

Postscript 

My attention has been drawn to the following article.  

Palmer on Russell

 

Bertrand Russell was one of the twentieth century's most influential critics of religion. He rejected dogma, challenged religious authority, and regarded many traditional beliefs as obstacles to human freedom and intellectual honesty. 

Yet in one remarkable passage, he offered a vision of what religion might become if it abandoned fear, submission, and prohibition in favor of courage, creativity, and human flourishing. More than a century later, his challenge remains as provocative as ever.

Russell wrote: 

“If a religious view of life and the world is ever to reconquer the thoughts and feelings of free-minded men and women, much that we are accustomed to associate with religion will have to be discarded. The first and greatest change that is required is to establish a morality of initiative, not a morality of submission, a morality of hope rather than fear, of things to be done rather than of things to be left undone. It is not the whole duty of man to slip through the world so as to escape the wrath of God. The world is our world, and it rests with us to make it a heaven or a hell. The power is ours, and the kingdom and the glory would be ours also if we had courage and insight to create them. The religious life that we must seek will not be one of occasional solemnity and superstitious prohibitions, it will not be sad or ascetic, it will concern itself little with rules of conduct. It will be inspired by a vision of what human life may be, and will be happy with the joy of creation, living in a large free world of initiative and hope. It will love mankind, not for what they are to the outward eye, but for what imagination shows that they have it in them to become. It will not readily condemn, but it will give praise to positive achievement rather than negative sinlessness, to the joy of life, the quick affection, the creative insight, by which the world may grow young and beautiful and filled with vigor.” 

First, Russell argued that religion should cultivate initiative rather than submission. Too often, religion has encouraged people to obey, conform, and defer to authority. Russell believed that a mature spiritual life should instead encourage human beings to think, create, and take responsibility for shaping the world. A religion that treats obedience as the highest virtue inevitably trains people to look outside themselves for permission to live.

Second, he believed morality should be grounded in hope rather than fear. Many religious systems have relied heavily on fear: fear of punishment, fear of sin, fear of divine judgment. Russell envisioned a moral framework motivated by the possibility of creating something better rather than avoiding something worse. Fear may produce compliance, but it rarely produces wisdom, courage, or genuine moral maturity.

Third, Russell shifted the focus from prohibition to participation. Much of traditional morality has been organized around avoidance: don't do this, don't think that, don't cross this line. Russell regarded such an approach as fundamentally inadequate. The measure of a life is not how successfully it avoids wrongdoing but what it contributes to the world. A person can spend an entire lifetime staying out of trouble and leave nothing behind except a record of cautious compliance.

Fourth, Russell rejected the idea that the purpose of life is simply to escape divine wrath or secure a place in the afterlife. The world, he argued, is our responsibility. Whether it becomes more humane or more destructive depends largely upon human courage, wisdom, and imagination. Any worldview that prioritizes the next world over this one risks becoming indifferent to suffering, injustice, and human flourishing here and now.

Fifth, he believed religion should inspire engagement with life rather than withdrawal from it. Spirituality need not be gloomy, ascetic, or obsessed with rule-keeping. It can be joyful, creative, and deeply connected to the realities of ordinary human existence. Russell was challenging the longstanding assumption that holiness requires distance from life rather than deeper participation in it.

Sixth, Russell emphasized human potential. He suggested that we should learn to see people not merely as they are but as they might become. The task is not endless condemnation but the cultivation of conditions in which growth, creativity, and human flourishing can occur. Communities that define people primarily by their failures rarely help them become anything greater than those failures.

Finally, he argued that positive achievement matters more than negative sinlessness. A life defined solely by avoiding mistakes is too small. The qualities that renew the world are courage, affection, imagination, creativity, and the willingness to participate fully in life. History is not shaped by those who merely avoided wrongdoing. It is shaped by those willing to risk failure in the service of creating something new.

Beneath Russell's critique lies a deeper question: what kind of human beings are our belief systems producing? Do they cultivate courage, imagination, responsibility, and participation, or do they cultivate dependence, conformity, and fear? Russell's concern was never simply whether religion was true. Russell's concern was never simply whether religion was true. His concern was whether religion was helping people become more fully human.

Jim Palmer

Part 523. Social action and the bible.

Recently I have been reading literature written by two Church of England clergy: Jon Swales and Samuel Wells.  The subject matter of my reading is the role of faith in social action.  What I find impressive about the two authors is that both are engaged heavily in practical activity: in the case of Swales the Lighthouse in Leeds and Wells at St.-Martin-in-the-Fields, London.  Both authors bring to their theological thoughts years of activity, dedication and commitment to social action. 

The writing of these authors expound a biblical basis for Christians helping individuals at point of need and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice. They write with authority, eloquence and clarity.  

But.....something is nagging me.

The teaching attributed to Jesus is clear, deep, profound: Love your Neighbour.  Surely that of itself is sufficient?  Do we need to delve into the writings of individuals from over 2000 years plus ago to expand on this principle, to interpret it and apply it now?  The bible is after all an human construct It is not, despite the claims of Evangelicals, God's unchangeable word. Do we need theological dissertations to bolster or justify engaging in social action?  I think not.  One might ask: is the bible a hindrance or a help in engaging in social action?  

Part 522. Faith and social action

It has been a privilege to engage with faith and secular organisations in the voluntary sector for over thirty years..  Welcome to a world of financial pressures, regulation, personality clashes, difficult relationships with statutory bodies and funders but also the quiet satisfaction of helping individuals. 

Whether assisting people at point of need or campaigning to eradicate the causes of that  need it is important to remember we are engaging with individuals, not clients, customers or units. Engagement should look beyond the immediate issue for an individual to its causes and consequences: pastoral care and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.

Poverty, homelessness, misogyny, racism, deprivation, discrimination, marginalisation, exclusion have causes to be addressed,  people in need of immediate practical support. Often the effect on individuals is to engender apathy, lethargy, despair, depression.  It is all too easy to be caught in a mindset that perceives no escape from the situation a person finds themselves in.  Having  experienced poverty, homelessness, unemployment and loneliness I understand how difficult life is: live through today and dread tomorrow.  Faith and secular organisations are engaging more  with holistic appoaches and seeking to break down the us as  provider and you as recipient approach.  We need to listen, show empathy and dispel patronising attitudes.

The authors of the synoptic gospels attribute to Jesus the principle of love your neighbour and the instruction to follow him in his concepts and actions.  But do Christians engage in social action only because it is expected of them?  I don't believe this to be the case. Major religions and secular philosophies profess to follow the Golden Rule: do to others as you would have done to you. But I have a nagging doubt that the agenda of faith groups is not simply to assist individuals in need of support but to use the engagement as a means of evangelism, however softly that is done. 

 Ask the question: is this the approach attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels?

 

Part 521. Rethinking church social action.

The link is to an article by Jon Swales.  Well worth a read.

https://www.cruciformjustice.com/post/counter-christianity-and-koinonia-rethinking-church-social-action

Part 520. Well done Professor Helen King

Congratulations to Helen King on putting forward this Private Members' Motion.  The response from the conservative Evangelicals and their supporters is as might have been expected both in tone and in argument.  We  must hope this motion is carried by a substantial majority in each of the three Houses of General Synod.

From the Church of England Evangelical Council website:

'18 May 2026

In July this year, the Church of England will see the most significant Private Members’k Motion (PMM) on sex and marriage in the last 40 years being brought to General Synod.

It has been confirmed by the Business Committee that the July General Synod will debate the PMM proposed by Professor Helen King, which seeks to affirm the compatibility of intimate same sex relationships with Christian discipleship.

The controversial motion (in full below) is cleverly worded and designed to secure support for a revision of the Church of England’s sexual ethics, without explicitly asking for a change to Church of England doctrine.

Professor Helen King (Oxford) to move:

‘That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.’

Private Members’ Motions function similarly to those in Parliament: once sufficient support is gathered, the Business Committee may schedule them for debate. While PMMs do not change doctrine or law, they can signal the theological and political ‘view’ of the Synod.

The last time General Synod expressed a view on marriage and sexual ethics in this way was in 1987. In that year, the ‘Higton Motion’ was passed by General Synod, which affirmed the Church’s traditional teaching on sexual ethics and marriage.

Revd John Dunnett, National Director, Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), said: “This motion matters. While it might be viewed by some as committing General Synod to ‘nothing in particular’, this motion shows that the revisionists will find new and different ways to continually push their agenda – away from Scripture, away from our Church’s doctrine and towards liberal change – even when the House of Bishops is not doing so. And were the motion to find support it could be seen as paving the way for further change.

“The big question is how the bishops and indeed the new Archbishop will respond. Will the Archbishop see it as an opportunity to allow Synod to express its mind, or would she prefer the process to be steered by the House of Bishops, and therefore encourage her colleagues to vote against the motion?”

Around the Communion, Dunnett cautions, the overwhelming response would be one of both sadness and despair.

“News of this motion will evoke a sad and negative response from across the Communion”, Dunnett concluded. “The Global South Fellowship of Anglicans and GAFCON would undoubtedly be concerned by the motion, and its passing would increase the impaired nature of relationships between the majority Anglican Communion and the Church of England.”

The Evangelical Group on General Synod (EGGS) will be working to defeat the motion in as an effective way as possible.

The February 2026 General Synod motion has committed the House of Bishops to forming a group which will carry forward the LLF trajectory – an initiative which could be of even greater threat to the apostolic understanding of marriage and sexual ethics upon which the Church of England has always been built.'

I doubt if CEEC saw this coming.  Expect  more of this nonsense, of increased bluster and threats to withhold parish share, to press for a separate province, or for structured alternative oversight, or even schism.  Let us hope fundamentalism is dealt a blow.  What Dunnett calls revisionism is nothing of the sort.  

Part 519. The para-military wing of conservative evangelicalism

Many years ago I attended the annual dinner of the Sheffield area branch of the Institute of Chartered Accountants held at the Cutlers Hall.  Formal dress.  The guest speaker was Fred Mulley, MP for the Sheffield Park constituency and a minster in the Labour government.  The 'star' of the evening was the humourist/comedian, who on surveying the huddle of penguins before him announced it was a pleasure to address the para-military wing of the Inland Revenue.  

I was reminded of this on receiving a communication from The Christian Institute containing this statement:

We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of  Scripture.

There is this statement also:

....committed to to upholding the truths of the Bible.

The Institute is on the front line campaigning and lobbying to uphold conservative evangelical biblical teaching on issues including inter alia abortion, gay rights, marriage, assisted death and conversion therapy.  It also supports litigation involving individuals claiming wrongful religious discrimination and/or persecution in employment. 

The danger is that government bodies, the press, social media and the public may gain the impression from the Institute's activity that it is representing the Christian opinion on issues.  Of course it is not.  It needs to be challenged vigorously by both liberal and progressive christians.

 

Part 518. Position statement

This post sets out my current theological thinking.  It enables me to take stock.  Over time my theological 'stance' has changed from broadly liberal evangelical to, well, to what?

My current thinking has ingredients from inter alia, humanism, existentialism, postmodernism, radical, liberal, progressive, liberation and deconstructivist theology. I describe it as a melange (or should it read 'mess'?).  My ideas are influenced by non theological factors. Politically I subscribe to democratic socialism. I led a chaotic personal life many years ago: divorce, destitution, sofa-surfing homelessness, and unemployment: all concurrently.  These experiences deeply influence my actions and my political and theological opinions.  

We should escape from a theological silo mentality  by seeking to understand interactions between religion, politics, economics, sociology, ethics, law, environment etc.  Theology should not be about doctrine, dogma creeds and biblical interpretation to the exclusion of  understanding and application of said to the realities of life for individuals, a reality shaped by myriad factors.  We can apply  theological ideas without recourse, reliance, or reference to scripture interpretation, church doctrine, dogma or creeds.  We do not need guardians, sentries or gatekeepers of church or academia to understand and apply our theological ideas.  It is for us, and us alone, to determine the relationship of theological concepts to our own lives and how our lives affect our theology.  The relationship is symbiotic.  It must be remembered that our lives are shaped by our experience, reason, tradition, relationships, work, poverty, family, political opinions etc and these factors impinge of our thoughts and actions, theological and otherwise, in many instances being what Oliver Wendell Holmes called inarticulate major premises.

If there is an entity we name as 'God' it is beyond human imagination, incapable of definition or description or symbolism. Judaic and christian scripture perceives God as being transcendent, supernatural, metaphysical and anthropomorphic.  Human supposition is opinion, not fact.  The scriptures are not the divine outpourings of God.  Marcus J  Borg states it well:  '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, statements not coming directly or somewhat directly from God.....I realised that whatever "divine revelation" and the "inspiration of the Bible" meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority.'

Colin Coward expresses brilliantly how the gospels came into being, how they are used by the Church of England and argues for fundamental change in attitude: 'Reflecting on the Holy Week and Easter stories over the past weekend, I have done so not thinking or believing that the Gospels are verbatim accounts given by, let alone written by those who witnessed these events. They are edited and re-edited stories based on oral accounts that had been told and retold and embroidered by the Jesus-followers, the first witnesses, the early Christian gatherings, and those who subsequently joined the Jesus-centred communities. To the oral accounts that formed the basis of the Gospels were added stories told to and re-told and experienced and embroidered by Paul (with the help of Luke).

Belief is a dilemma for me because I do not believe in what is rehearsed in church every Sunday and maintained by the authority of the institution as adequately representing an adequate vision of the Jesus who transforms life and culture. The Gospels and Acts and the history books of the Hebrew scriptures are not accurate, historical accounts of the events and lives they describe. History never is accurate but always a personal view and interpretation. The contemporary “traditional, orthodox, Biblical” ways of our religious systems do not, for me, embrace the essence and heart of Jesus’ life and teachings. We live with ideas about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit that are human interpretations of Jesus’ teachings and essence. All knowledge is developed and communicated through the medium of human understanding. Any distortion or misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus is the result of human failure to comprehend. Throughout my life I have been trying to disentangle the ingredients of distortion and error from healthier wisdom and truth, trying to be more aware of and recapture and synthesise the essence of a holy, sacred, incarnated transformational wisdom that helps us embrace the essence of life in all its fulness.

Whether we are aware or not, all of us are dealing with myths and the development of human interpretations and teachings and corruptions of the divine human we worship as Son of God.

We continue to have great difficulty in distinguishing the unhealthy divine attributions that are fundamental corruptions of Jesus’ life and teachings from the Jesus’ essence that is the catalyst for healthy, creative consciousness that make life in all its fulness into real presence.'

It has been stated before on this blog that it really does not matter if Jesus was an actual person. What does matter is the principle of love and how we in the twenty-first century CE interpret that principle for the future. Of course the Sermon on the Mount and the parables assist us in our understanding and application of the corpus of statements attributed to Jesus. Borg puts it well: 'Properly understood the Bible is a potential ally to the progressive Christian passion for transformation of ourselves and the world. It is our great heritage. Along with Jesus, to whom it is subordinate, it is our greatest treasure.'

I published the following in 2025:

God it is beyond description, it is 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 by 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.

The above are my opinions (except for the direct quotations) and are not the writings of a person who remotely considers themselves to be a theologian.  The author has been described as an outsider and a prophet but is not sure the epithets apply. The blog's posts do not seek to persuade any reader to change their faith/beliefs in God nor their understanding of the source of and interpretation of scripture.

Part 517. Quotations

Those of us of a progressive disposition, followers of the way of Jesus, doubtess will concur with the following quotations.

Jesus invites us to a life where faith is expressed in action and where love, compassion and justice become the language of our lives.  Kurt Struckmeyer

A Christianity that causes the hungry to go without food, the poor to be exploited, the stranger to be mistreated, and God's creation to be ravaged, all the while supporting the greedy and cruel as they satisfy every desire, is a Christianity that can no longer claim to follow Christ.  Benjamin Cremer

The eternal destiny of human beings will be measured by how much or how little solidarity we have displayed with the hungry, the thirsty, the naked and the oppressed.  In the end we will be judged in terms of love  Leonardo Boff

Believing in the resurrection does not just mean assenting to a dogma and noting a historical fact.  It means participating in this creative act of God.  Resurrection is not a consoling opium, soothing as with the promise of a better world in the hereafter.  It is the energy for a rebirth of this life.  The hope doesn't point to another world.  It is focussed on the redemption of this one.  Jurgen Moltmann

In the New Testament, in the First Letter of John, we are told that the words Love and God are convertible. You can't slip a knife between them  If you love your fellow human being, you know God and are in God, whereas if you don't love, you don't know God.  The word God doesn't designate a distinct metaphysical being; it is simply Love's name.  Don Cupitt

Church should never be a form of escapism.  Following Jesus means embracing the reality of the world aroud us.  That means addressing racism, xenophobia, sexism, bigotry, sexual assault, nationalism, and many other forms of oppression and hate.  Stephen Mattson

The Gospel is a very dangerous idea. We have to see how much of that dangerous idea we can perform in our own lives. There is nothing innocuous or safe abaoaut the Gospel.  Jesus did not get crucified beacuse he was a nice man.  Walter Brueggemann

Part 516. A Guide to love: not a user manual

 Previous posts have emphasised that scripture is of human origin and not a manifestation of the thoughts of an anthropomorphic or supranatural being somewhere 'out there'.  In post 515 is the opinion of Colin Coward on the authorship and editing of scripture, an opinion I have no hesitation in sharing.

Marcus J Borg :

'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, statements not coming directly or somewhat directly from God.....I realised that whatever "divine revelation" and the "inspiration of the Bible" meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority.'

 

'Properly understood the Bible is a potential ally to the progressive Christian passion for transformation of ourselves and the world. It is our great heritage. Along with Jesus, to whom it is subordinate, it is our greatest treasure.'

The concepts, teaching, ideas attributed to the person named Jesus by the compilers of the synoptic gospels are not a set of rigid rules.  They do not collectively furnish us with an instruction manual to be followed to the letter, to be interpreted literally.  Rather they provide examples and ideas of what it is to love.  We should understand them as symbols and metaphor. The synoptic gospels are pointers to how we might act in respect of our personal  behaviour, our concern for the needs of others and in our quest for social justice to eliminate systemic failures that entrench racism, poverty, mysogeny and homophobia. 

Marcus J Borg tells us the bible:  Along with Jesus, to whom it is subordinate, it is our greatest treasure.'

Yes, the bible is a valuable resource, a useful guide, but the final word is with us.  It is not so much the case we should seek guidance by interpreting scripture: rather it is we should be guided by our intellect and power of reasoning to decide what it is in the twenty-first century to love and how to go beyond theory into action. Our understanding and action has to evolve if the Christain faith is not become a museum piece.

John Shelby Spong puts it well:

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 taught to think, but it is factual. Christianity has always been an evolving story. It was never, even in the New Testament, a finished story.'

The Church of England Book of Common Prayer (BCP) contains the service of Evening Prayer.  Following the reading from the Old Testament the congregation say or sing Magnificat taken from Luke 1: 46-55.  

The BCP states verses 52-53 as follows:

He hath put down the mighty from their seat: and exalted the humble and meek.

He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Congregations say or sing these words, but do many understand the principles behind them?  How do we, of fail to, apply them in the present to individuals and society?  How do we understand them through the lens of love? We  should understand them as an illustration of love by applying our intelligence and power of reason, not by a rigid, literal, limiting interpretion of individual words.