I think I was twelve or thirteen when another boy countered what I thought to be a factual statement I had made with the riposte – it is a matter of opinion. I was faced at that moment with the notion that what I believed to be a true fact could be understood in more than one way. Truth and falsehood were thus not always the neat categories I had always thought they were. As life went on, I discovered that debate might be a good way of moving towards what is true and bringing clarity to whatever was being talked about. But even lengthy discussions did not always uncover an authoritative truth which all could agree on. Inside one’s own head they were beliefs and personal opinions, but I understood that other people could hold very different notions, even when using the same words. Thinking and feeling alike, to paraphrase Philippians 2.2, was never a simple straightforward matter. Finding out what one really believes and thinks in areas like religion and politics is, for most of us, a work in progress Thanks to the slippery, even provisional nature of language, many of us are somewhat reticent in the way we communicate our deeper beliefs and convictions.
As small children, most of us were alert to the expressed opinions of parents and respected teachers. The opinions that were expressed on the things we could understand, had enormous influence on us as we negotiated our way to learn about the world in all its complexity. Eventually we had to decide for ourselves which ideas and convictions truly belonged to us and were not just the pale reflection of a parental opinion. The teenage years are a traditional time of questioning and creating personal value systems. For those of us who attended university, there was an additional allocated space for questioning life and discovering personal identity and conviction. The majority embrace these new arenas of thinking and working things out with excitement and relish. Others shrink from the pain which comes as the result of having the safe patterns of childhood thinking undermined. Some find their way into membership of ideologies or groups where thinking and coming to an opinion is done for them by a figure with charismatic authority. I am always struck how cultic groups have much appeal for those confused and disoriented by the difficult task of growing up.
For Christians and others involved in a spiritual quest, the task of finding a place of spiritual and intellectual coherence is an issue always being worked upon. If we have, in fact, a position of faith able to be put into words, it is likely to be a combination of what we have experienced, what we have been taught and the use of our reasoning and linguistic abilities. However enthusiastic we are for speaking about this personal spiritual journey, we are probably aware of limitations in what we say and how we communicate it. One limitation is the fact that language, as we have suggested, is a slippery construct. What I mean when I use a particular word is not necessarily how another person hears and understands it. This flakiness of everyday language, if we may describe it as such, results in some Christians taking refuge in the belief that the words and text of the Bible have a supreme privileged status. A quote from the Bible is thought to be a clinching argument against which there can be no counterstatement. This propositional way of understanding Scripture is one I personally find hard to deal with. This approach side-steps so many difficult issues in discovering the best way of understanding Scripture, that I avoid this kind of discussion. The Jehovah’s Witness on the doorstep or the fundamentalist preacher expects me to agree with their approach and their dogmatic understanding of the text. When I do not, there is little purpose in debate or even attempts at communication on the issue. Consensus or anything resembling agreement is a long way away.
The parading of texts of Scripture in our current debates about sexuality and the place of women in the church seems to be, from my perspective, an unrewarding, even futile task. There is a chasm which exists between those who argue with a defensive use of bible quotes against others who seek to apply other insights from human thinking and reflection over the centuries. The issue is not primarily about one side being right and the other wrong. It is that the starting places of the two sides makes logical coherent debate impossible. Any attempt, for example, to pit a believer against a non-believer in the ‘young earth’ theory is clearly an unhelpful exercise. To have any kind of debate on a topic, there have to be a number of agreed ground rules. Both sides have to be ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’ as the expression goes. In many contemporary debates this is not the case. The classic notion of debate, typified by those which take place at the Oxford Union, has as its aim the presentation of arguments that can change minds and beliefs. In church debates we often seem to encounter the parties concerned behaving like two deaf individuals shouting at one another. The supporters of the complementarian point of view cannot really expect to change minds by endlessly repeating the same overworked texts from Paul’s epistles. As a student of the Bible, I found, for example, the scholarly hypotheses about the structure of the book of Genesis to be far more convincing than a theory of a single author. I have no intention of expending energy arguing for the existence of these source documents, respectively known as J, E and P. For me, the settled convictions of much biblical scholarship, the non-Pauline authorship of the so-called Pastoral Epistles and the primacy of Mark’s gospel make sense and have stood the test of time. There will of course be refinements and revisions to such theories, but the fundamental claims have held sway for a long time. No attempt by conservative evangelical Christians to persuade me or one of my college contemporaries, to turn our backs on the broad outlines of these positions, is likely to succeed.
In our crazy contemporary world of political and religious differences, we sometimes arrive a place where it is clear to see that two opposing positions are never going to be reconciled. No amount of discussion is going to make chalk into cheese or a lie into truth. If one party in a dispute persists on maintaining a totally implausible theory, (as in Trump-world), then the other side may choose simply to withdraw from the field. This is not because they have been defeated, though it may look like that. It is because the truth speaker recognises the futility of pretending that the dispute merits the description of being called a debate. A proper debate is, to repeat, an honourable and worthwhile activity and it has the possible outcome of changing minds. In contrast, the endless repetition of propaganda or ideology does not deserve such a description.
There is one interesting current example of what seem to be two opposing opinions or minds being unable to meet. This is in the sanctioning of Lord Sentamu by the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley. The removal of the PTO from a former Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has been applauded by many as an example of firm management. While my strong sympathies and support are with Bishop Hartley in this case, the question of who is right and who wrong, is not the most striking feature of this event. What is important is to note to the way that Bishop Hartley, in issuing this sanction, clearly saw that the time for dialogue or debate was over. The strongly held beliefs about a past safeguarding case held by Sentamu had to be overruled and declared to be completely out of order. A peer of the realm and, for a couple of decades, a bishop of the Church of England was being told decisively by another bishop, you are wrong, and I cannot allow this discussion to continue.
The sanctioning of a senior retired archbishop and a member of the House of Lords sends a chill through the entire Church. We fear for the institution, not because the decision was wrong, but because the clash of such opposing irreconcilable positions should never theoretically have been allowed to happen in public. Our belief in leadership always depends on our trust that those in charge will always make the correct decisions. Even if we do not agree with them, we trust that senior figures in the Church (like Lord Sentamu) will have the experience and the advisors to protect them from serious errors of judgement. If they do make mistakes, we trust that these mistakes are never serious in nature. If a senior church figure is declared officially to have made a serious mistaken judgement, something in the structure of the institution is weakened. We desperately want our leaders, political and religious, to make sound decisions and for those decisions to stand the test of time. In this case that assumption no longer holds. For the rest of us it is disturbing and deeply uncomfortable to witness the failure of debate together with non-communication among our leaders.
Non-communication and a complete failure to agree, has always been a feature of political life. We may always have wanted to believe that Christians were somehow always eventually able to reconcile their differences and come to a common mind. The situation of General Synod at its recent session is perhaps demonstrating to us that there are situations where two or more parties in a dispute can never agree, because objectively their arguments and perspectives are rooted in places where communication does not take place. American politics has given us another dramatic example of human non-communication. The gulf that has opened up between the parties can no longer be resolved by an appeal to truth. For some reason, which is deeper than psychology, personality or education, individuals take a stand on issues which are, to the opposing party, incomprehensible. Understanding the inner workings of a MAGA mind, or a believer in the young earth theory, involves penetrating a level of irrationality which is impossible to do without some risk to our own sanity. Some current differences in the Church also are going way beyond the apparent rules of useful debate. The two positions are starting from such different places that we cannot reasonably even speak about ‘gracious disagreement’. Some discussion about this current crisis of non-communication is urgently needed. Admitting that we sometimes start from places at total variance to another may be necessary. Only then can a process be set up to explore where the bonds of a common humanity can perhaps be rediscovered. Human communication in some situations is something that needs to be learnt all over again.
I recently read ‘Unfollow’, the memoir of Megan Phelp-Roper, with intense interest. Megan was brought up in Westboro Baptists Church, the Kansas church infamous for its ‘God Hates Fags’ slogan. The church is ultra-fundamentalist and very exclusive; most of the members were members of Megan’s extended family. She was brainwashed from birth and grew up to be one of its most dedicated campaigners. Yet her mind was gradually opened to different points of view, and it was social media that brought this different viewpoints to her. Specifically, it was people who disagreed with her, backed up their statements with biblical quotes, and yet remained courteous and friendly. Megan eventually left the church, though she knew it meant being disowned by her own family.
It’s a riveting story.
Due out this autumn is another book which should prove interesting to those interested in how people come to change their worldview. The working title is ‘Faith Lost and Found’, and it’s edited by Profs Martin Percy and Charles Foster. Should be worth a read, though I have to declare an interest and admit I have contributed to it.
I have serious not met such incompetent professionals working in safeguarding ever.
They speak to others about me, ask others to ask me to contact them, and then the whole safeguarding team refuse to call me when I give them opportunities then tell others I am not welcome until I speak to them.
What do bishops pay these incompetent professionals to do exactly?
Either they want to speak to me or they do not.
If I got to church would they turn me away to say I should speak to the safeguarding team, and even when you show others your emails they say you need to speak too them when they refuse to engage.
Where is God in all of this? Anywhere.
Today again, I contact the Diocese, they speak to others about me, ask others to ask me to contact them, and, they then choose not to in a timely manner to engage yet their issues are so serious they are safeguarding they cannot engage.
I contacted the New Safeguarding Board and they did not seem interested.
It seems like if you are in a position of trust in the Church of England, you can pretty much abuse for as long as you like and nothing will be done about it.
I asked them to engage and to make reasonable adjustments for my disability but they refuse to engage or adhere to the law.
How would they like it if I was in a position of trust and did the same to them?
Will Safeguarding and communication in the Church of England ever change?
It’s sad that Bishop Helen-Ann was put in this position. But I think it’s ok that it’s public. After all, Sentamu’s surly and ungracious response was public. It’s a shame, but we are grown-ups, and can understand that even Godly people who pray, do indeed, differ.
Indeed, I’m honestly quite shocked by the article suggesting “the clash of such opposing irreconcilable positions should never theoretically have been allowed to happen in public”.
I agree. Saints Peter and Paul strongly disagreed in public, and Luke publicly records that Paul disputed with Barnabas to such an extent that they parted company. Better to have these things out in the open than covered up.
As for Sentamu, his ‘church law trumps safeguarding’ reeks of the priest’s and the Levite’s passing by the robbers’ injured victim. Love should trump church law, every time. Jesus’ whole life shows us that: ‘the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.’ Sentamu publicly demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the gospel, and a public rebuke was very necessary.
‘Surly’ and ‘ungracious’ do not make something factually inaccurate. They could, secondly, also be inaccurate misinterpretations of emphatic speech. And the more injustice, the more emphatic speech is appropriate. Exalting style above substance, which we all did when we were young and not equipped to understand the substance (just as Stephen as a boy in Canterbury could work out only that the priests were shouting, and no more than that), is the problem.
That is not to say Abp Sentamu is right or wrong, but to expose a very common faulty methodology which has already been exposed so many previous times.
The problem, I fear, is that in current popular thinking little if any thought is ever given to the alternatives of what many people say so dogmatically. I make no apology for linking the article by Philip Jones who clearly does not consider Archbishop Sentamu to have been fairly treated. Whether or not one agrees, his view supported by legal argument should command respect and not be airily dismissed.
I’m fairly sure that I gave a cogent explanation of why I felt, even though a layman, that Sentamu’s explanation was deficient, and Froghole made a similar, and better-informed, case. I don’t think it those deserve the label “airy dismissal”. But it seems I read old-fashioned books on logic.
The comment wasn’t directed at you or Froghole or, indeed, any specific person here. It might be appropriate for two bishops. You must draw your own conclusions about that.
My comments are always intended to be helpful, and I hope courteous, but some people jump to wrong conclusions too readily.
Much as I respect Stephen’s views, and understand what I suspect will be the widespread sympathies of other readers, I think this alternative view written by Philip Jones, an authoritative ecclesiastical lawyer, should be both considered and afforded respect.
https://ecclesiasticallaw.wordpress.com/2023/07/31/safeguarding-and-the-rule-of-law/
Archbishop Sentamu is, or was, by training a lawyer. I have no doubt that he genuinely believes that his stance was legally correct that at the material time he had no jurisdiction in the Sheffield diocese (incidentally its erstwhile bishop continues in prominent office in another diocese).
My view, and I Am Not A Lawyer, is that there’s a difference between saying that Sentamu’s stance was legally correct and that it was the only legally correct option available to him (I think it was morally incorrect, but that’s not the point). The complaint to Sentamu was that Stephen Croft as Bishop of Sheffield had ignored a disclosure of abuse. That’s a complaint of misconduct by a bishop in his province, and clearly a complaint which Sentamu could legally take action on. (To be clear, Sentamu was not being asked to re-open the original complaint.) His excuse that he might later be called on to adjudicate a case he himself had initiated is, frankly, absurd: that’s tantamount to saying that he could never take any action on any complaint against one of his bishops, which can’t be right — and he could have appointed a commissary to act on his behalf to investigate the initial complaint, or adjudicate any resulting proceedings, or both. What Sentamu did was to ask a lawyer whether there were legal grounds that would allow him to ignore the complaint completely — that is, to not even respond to it. Apparently he was advised that there were legal grounds to do that, although those grounds seem to me, as a mere layman, very flimsy. But my point is that he could legally have acted differently, and he chose not to. He has subsequently excused his choice of action (or rather, inaction) by the true statement that he had taken legal advice and the, in my view, untrue implication (I think very carefully not stated explicitly) that he had no legal alternative.
I agree completely. Much as I respect Archdeacon Jones, the argument (as I understand it) that a metropolitan can intervene only where a diocesan has committed some sort of material legal wrong; that Dr Coft had not done so when in office, and therefore Lord Sentamu’s hands were tied, strikes me as ‘contestable’.
Canon C17 (2) appears to give the primates rather wide ranging powers: “The archbishop has throughout his province at all times metropolitical jurisdiction, as superintendent of all ecclesiastical matters therein, to correct and supply the defects of other bishops, and, during the time of his metropolitical visitation, jurisdiction as Ordinary, except in places and over persons exempt by law or custom.”
The phrase ‘defects of other bishops’ strikes me as meaning whatever an archbishop wants it to mean. Recent authorities, such as Leeder (1997) and Hill (2007) do not really have much, if anything, to say about this beyond citing C17(2). Cripps (1845) says this:
“The archbishop is superintendent throughout his whole province of all ecclesiastical matters, to correct and supply the defects of other bishops, so that, for many purposes, he has concurrent jurisdiction with them; and therefore his ecclesiastical acts done within his province are voidable only, and not void, though done where the jurisdiction belonged to a bishop or other ecclesiastical person within his province as if he were to grant administration where there was not bona notabilia [‘considerable goods’, an expression formerly used in probate cases when the courts Christian had testamentary jurisdiction]. So he hath provincial power over all bishops in his province, may hold a court where he pleases therein, may officiate as judge in person or by vicar-general; may deprive them or convene them before him, for misdemeanour in their function.” (v. 1, at 67-68). Cripps cites Burn and Lord Raymond’s survey of metropolitical powers in the Bishop of St David’s Case (1699) (Archdeacon Jones has also written about that case, although not on this point).
Archdeacon Jones argues that “‘To correct and supply the defects of other bishops’ means that the Archbishop should intervene only when the diocesan bishop cannot cope, or cannot be trusted.”.
Why does it just mean that? It strikes me that this form of restraint is self-imposed and a mere convention. As noted above by Cripps, the primate has concurrent jurisdiction. The ‘defects’ need not necessarily be legal misdemeanours; they might be anything from administrative incompetence to moral turpitude of any kind. No one accused Eric Kemp or John Hind of doing anything *legally* wrong, and yet Justin Welby ordered a visitation of Chichester diocese.
If Sentamu did not want to advertise his slopy shoulders he could, as Unreliable Narrator has noted, have appointed a commissary or charged his vicar general with the task of investigating and/or making recommendations about the then bishop of Sheffield.
I did not expect my post to pass without comment! I recall employing precisely your argument about Canon C 17 (2) in a discussion on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ where it was roundly dismissed. I was reading too much into ‘metropolitical visitation’, I was told. That literally meant exercising jurisdiction as Visitor during a visitation. I wasn’t totally convinced at the time, but it was one of those situations on TA where I was being outvoted by everyone else, and they had the final word!
I make no further comment. I am not a canon lawyer!
Many thanks, as ever. Sometimes the threads on these blogs get so jumbled up that I completely lose track of the arguments (and I am forgetful enough as it is). I think you (and maybe one other person, again I forget) were right to refer to Philip Jones’s piece. It is always good to have a different view, and for whatever ‘conventional wisdom’ that has been established to be challenged. I think that Archdeacon Jones’s argument is cogent, but I regret it does not convince me.
As is so often the case with the Church, custom and convention sometimes become calcified to the extent that they function as law, and tend to support Herbert Hart’s argument about the ‘rule of recognition’. A notable example of this was the levying of compulsory church rate from the high middle ages until 1868. At no point was church rate sanctioned directly by parliament, a very unusual thing for a universally applicable tax, but it was recognised by the courts Christian and, as a result, by the secular courts, and it was felt necessary to pass a statute to repeal it.
In terms of the ‘recognition’ of the primates’ authority over their suffragans (i.e., diocesans) it seems that all we really have to go on after the Reformation is the 1699 case (the deprivation of Thomas Watson of St David’s for simony: http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/ames_foundation/BLHC07/Paley%20a%20matter%20of%20judgement.pdf; I should stress that Thomas Tenison and several episcopal assessors were the judges in 1699, but the report was that of the future Lord Raymond CJKB), together with details of subsequent actual or attempted deprivations in 1822 and 1890. I think the Watson case was discussed here in relation to the Winchester business.
However, 1699 is a long time ago, and since then it might be argued that the sweeping rights which Tenison arrogated to his see have been superseded by a convention that a primate should only intervene in the affairs of a diocese in extremis. That convention appears to have become a firm principle – at least until the recent Chichester visitation of 2012 and the Lincoln suspension of 2019 (which was, as some have noted, instigated on obscure grounds, with a suggestion of safeguarding failings that may have camouflaged administrative and financial breakdown). Given the manner in which metropolitical authority was exercised in Chichester (perhaps reasonably) and Lincoln (perhaps capriciously), it can now be argued that the application of a ‘rule of recognition’ to archiepiscopal forbearance from interference in the affairs of other dioceses in a province has now been exploded, and perhaps had been exploded by the time Lord Sentamu decided to leave Dr Croft alone in 2012-13.
With the dubious advantage of having started life with a rigid set of fixed beliefs, and progressed to a more open and flexible position, I feel able to comment. I say dubious, because I’m at peace now with myself and my maker, but the process of getting here was very arduous and painful and I wouldn’t easily recommend it. Neither is it complete. It involves a journey of much loss, a metamorphosis from a defended unconscious fearfulness to finding wings of freedom to move and live healthily.
Some here would regard my transition to be an apostasy, a betrayal of all they stand for. Sadly we’ll have to agree to differ, but I know for their most extreme, this will be impossible.
It’s a risk to be at church. It’s a venture into community with all the forces of group irrationality at potential play. Sometimes Good is produced, but very often it’s the exact opposite. We can be unrealistic, biased, uneducated and fickle all by ourselves, but when we get together, these factors are usually amplified far beyond the sum of our parts.
The path I was forced to take does also convey the advantage, such as it is, of being able to appreciate very much of what is going on in the minds of those still stuck in rigidity, and why it is so difficult to move away from this. They won’t want my love, but I feel it.
I also feel anger, along with many others here, at a corrupt system that “nurtures” our young, and now not-so-young in, such damaging ways. I share with many others here a sense of duty to effect change. I believe that the established Church (in particular) is a million miles from what Christ intended. And He’s a lot more angry than we are. If He is with us, we may succeed. Why His Father gives us free will to behave as we do as a Church, is a mystery. But we also have this freedom to do right and good just as He taught us: to be Good Samaritans, to lift and support others and not to harm or neglect them.
i – It’s reasonable (Romans 12: 1-2) to suppose that communal authorship of old narratives going back (in part) thousands, (in part) hundreds, of years before Joshua, bore a stamp of a far bigger sense of authority than the contrivances of extremists who rival each other in shallow mindedness.
ii – It was explained to me (by informed individuals) that the purpose of “Oxford debates” is sophistry without aiming at conviction, and that substance should be left out.
iii – If Abp Sentamu has to seek impartial (in the original sense of the word) support when approached in this way, he also has to do the same when the case later gets referred back to him, therefore that clause isn’t honestly applicable here. The person approaching him wanted a moral solution. What did God or whoever created the C of E, want it seen to be based on?
iv – When archbishops are in fear because a diocesan “has something on them”, it’s time for christians of all ranks to act mutually to ensure the diocesan uses such insights frankly, and not passive-agressively against small bystanders. Is there a faction involved, resembling that in the “Kenneth” case?
1. If there are precisely two main opinions AND simultaneously those two opinions are sharply distinct, even polarised, that can never have come about by means of following evidence. Therefore we are probably looking at (on the one hand) the evidenced opinion and (on the other) the wishful thinking opinion, otherwise known as an ideology.
2. TV and radio debates are often set up in this false polarised way. That is why headway is never made, and the conclusion is always ‘This one will run and run’. Without exalting evidence (and TV and radio shun statistics in debate) there can be no advance.
3. It is known that many things are complex. Some, however, have as an article of faith that everything is or must be complex. They do not produce evidence for this idea.
4. The words ‘view’ and ‘opinion’ are strictly practically useless since they cover the whole spectrum from hard-won research conclusions to pure wishful thinking. It is unconscionable that these two could ever be put on a level with one another or even close. Yet they are both ‘views’. So if any debate frames things in terms of ‘this is your view, that is mine’ then not only is that relativism (a naive nonstarter as a philosophy) but also it is disrespectful in the extreme to those who have laboured to arrive at conclusions that are worth something.
5. Speaking of ‘framing’, all you need to do to normalise a particular perspective is to choose where the middle ground is, the via media. Place it near to your own extreme position, and you have won much ground in the popular debate, as well as been dishonest.
6. ‘The Overton Window’ purports to divide off acceptable opinion from unacceptable. It is clear that neither truth nor evidence is in view in that enterprise, merely fashion. This is sinister even before we ask the question of who it is that decides where the Overton window lies and from where they derive their authority.
“If there are precisely two main opinions AND simultaneously those two opinions are sharply distinct, even polarised, that can never have come about by means of following evidence. Therefore we are probably looking at (on the one hand) the evidenced opinion and (on the other) the wishful thinking opinion, otherwise known as an ideology.”
The first is plausible, if not completely universal. The second is quite wrong. Most issues of principle are not determined by evidence, although debate is ften framed as if they were. For example, the question of whether the state or the parents should take primary responsibility for, and have primary authority over, the upbringing of children is not one that is determined by reasoning from evidence.
You are arguing from convention. The source of convention’s authority is unclear, nor do you state it. It is obvious that the word ‘convention’ means ‘what is usually done’. But everyone knows that the things usually done could be helpful or harmful or anything in between.
When there is data available about what is helpful and what is not, the idea that a data-free approach (such as any uninformed layperson could take) is preferable (yes, *preferable*) to a data-led approach clearly has not a leg to stand on.
There is no logical argument that can derive a statement about what ought to be purely what statements about what is. (If you choose to describe logical argument as a convention, well, it’s a convention that has served us well very the last few millennia.) Any arguments that purport to do so import the “ought” part through such words as “helpful”. The point of democracy is precisely that the general public are as well placed to answer “ought” questions as anyone else.
OK – if your main point is the ought/is question, then it is a dogma that you cannot derive an ought from an is, but those who state the dogma neglect that there is plenty of evidence (logical, statistical, scientific etc.) that needs to be mined before one ever justifiably uses the word ‘ought’ in the first place. Once it has been mined, however, that word can be used very meaningfully.
Thanks, Stephen, for writing your piece which started this thread. I could identify with your opening comments very clearly but not being trained in ecclesiastical law or philosophy, cannot comment on many of the following replies which are well beyond my grasp.
As youngsters we deal in ‘concrete’ thinking and, only gradually progress to abstract thought processes. Some people, for whatever reason, struggle to make the transition at all; others (like me) find it easier in some parts than it is in others, and waver backwards and forwards. (Capital punishment, in my case, is a good example.) It doesn’t help if we’re able to see both sides of an issue; indeed, it can often make it harder to make a decision one way or the other. Insecurity, fear of change and of revising cherished beliefs will find support in dogmatism and an external ‘ultimate authority’ which is beyond challenge. There are a great many people in the church who’re like that. They prefer it that way, either for the security or unrecognised sense of power that they obtain from it.
I read somewhere that for every dogmatic ‘word of God’ command you can find in the Bible, you will find at least one verse which states the opposite and that, by carefully selecting your texts, you can virtually make the book say what you want it to. I take it seriously, but at the same time see no good reason not to draw on modern science or other wisdom to help form my thinking. Other folks that I know, wouldn’t think like that at all – so how do you reconcile such views? I don’t think you can. In so far as is possible, we have toi respect and bear with one another
It doesn’t help thinking things through and changing your views if much of your church experience has been in very conservative doctrinal circles, where the kind of things Stephen refers to – multiple writers of Genesis etc, are never mentioned. Ask about them, and you tend to get a very negative reaction – I know, having once asked where the ‘three writers of Isaiah’ came from, and the vicar concerned reacted as if I’d just quoted the language written on the wall of a rural pub’s urinal! Having studied around it a bit, I can now see why the idea developed, and – being pretty clear within the NIV translation, can happily accept it.
We’re also talking about an authority which, by definition, is rather abstract in itself – how do you convince another believer, atheist or humanist that they may be wrong, or indeed that you may be? Cromwell said something about that!
Sanctified ignorance is a major trap – and unwillingness to depart from long established dogmas based on partial or limited teaching is another. But how do you get over that? A friend once said to me that the fact I’d been to college automatically put me into the ‘elite’ class. Oh, dear. Not surprising then, that people without that advantage stick to concrete thinking.
Live and let live – and trust the Spirit to help us . And none of us…
Thanks for your careful reflection.
Perhaps you are right in that truth and falsehood are not always neat categories. Even lengthy discussions do not always uncover an authoritative truth which we can all agree on. You summarise it nicely when you say of the differing parties that “their arguments and perspectives are rooted in places where communication does not take place.” You also note this mutual incomprehension affects debates on sexuality. May I give you an example to illustrate.
The Living in Love and Faith (LLF) videos introduce us to Graham. He is ordained, happily married with grown children. He tells us how in his early days he experienced a same-sex attraction. He thought this was wrong and was able to change. Such a change may not always be possible or possible to the same degree as it was for Graham, but it is possible for some. That is presumably why Graham was presented to us in the LLF videos.
Now consider our debates on sexuality. We are indeed getting nowhere despite LLF’s worthy intentions to bring us to listen to each other with mutual respect.
It would be good if that were the end of the matter, but it is not. Some of us are urging the Government to bring forward legislation banning ‘Conversion Therapy’. The term ‘ban’ translates to prosecute, criminalise and even imprison our brothers and sisters where we disagree on pastoral practices related to sexuality. The General Synod voted for this in 2017.
This position is further clarified in a letter dated 1 March 2022 to the Minister for Women and Equalities which states “conversion therapy is coercive, and that therefore informed consent is not possible”. The underlying reason is that “We believe that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer peoples are made fully and beautifully in the image of God, and that their sexualities and gender identities can neither be cured nor changed – for this is how God has made them to be”. (Christianssuporttheban.co.uk)
So much for Graham’s free choice and that of others like him. It hardly needs saying that no one supports force or coercion, which is in any case covered by existing legislation. Neither is anyone being rejected because of their sexuality.
In summary, we had LLF urging us to listen to each other while at the same time some of us were calling for Government prosecutions on the very topics we were supposed to discuss with mutual respect! And if this succeeds, persons like Graham will be left without the help they seek. That includes prayer and pastoral support as well as professional psychological counselling.
Clearly we are not just dealing with differing opinions and perspectives. Some of us are so right that we are prepared to see our brothers and sisters prosecuted by the State.
Perhaps you can reflect on this in a future blog.
Our present culture is inhabited by the half educated, who regularly have no idea about counter arguments or what they are based on. The extreme intolerance displayed by (of all people!) these half educated is dogmatism, and often gets brushed under the carpet. It has been justly said that today’s criminals are yesterday’s mature and wise role models. ‘Criminals’ among the ranks of Christian Concern’s and the Christian Institute’s clients.
Respect isn’t accorded to us automatically anymore, if it ever was, despite or perhaps because of any professional status we may hold. Each profession I’ve been involved with has had many good people, but a few bad apples. Because of the immediacy of media, the bad actions rapidly detract from the appeal of the whole profession, rightly or wrongly, and the clergy and bishops are no exception.
Equally, people won’t read all of what we say or indeed any of it even, if they don’t feel we’ve earned their respect. Even then they may not have time.
We can say something that turns out to be totally right, and if we have insufficient following, or a modicum of status, no one will recognise that it was us who said it. Even having a hard won or formerly prestigious qualification no longer makes much difference. This is the world we live in.
Facts: God made them malang female. For this reason a man leaves his mum & dad and is joined to his wife (female) – joined by God. No amount of sophistry can change this.
God made all life after its kind bearing the seed for its reproduction.
God set children in families reflecting the image of God. Male and female, in the image of God.
Interesting indeed that these divine parameters define the primary points of opposition for all budding apostates.
‘God created mankind in his own image;
in the image of God he made them;
male and female he created them.’
Beautiful, and pregnant with meaning. The word translated ‘God’ is actually the plural Elohim, hinting at both the diversity and the harmony within the Godhead.
‘Male and female he created them:’ does this mean that he created males and females, with a sharp distinction between the two – or that he created all of us with both male and female elements to our natures? The Elohim are not given a gender, as far as we know, but if we are made in his/their image God must possess both male and female characteristics.
A small percentage of babies are born with indeterminate sex (usually known as intersex). They may have physical characteristics of both sexes, or of neither. God made them, too, as they are.
None of this is sophistry. The Bible and reality are more complicated than we sometimes want to admit.
‘that he created all of us with both male and female elements to our natures’:
(1) The correct interpretation is the one that shines forth from the culture and from understanding texts against the background of the whole body of relevant texts from that culture and time;
(2) The chief failing of interpreters is to create other cultures in the image of their own.
And besides, surely we know that this is a theological interpretation by people who came at it from their own perspective and within the limits of their own scientific knowledge and understanding?
I don’t think that the idea of the creator creating one species in their own image has ever had any connection to science.
That’s kind of what I meant!
In fact, the scripture quote is three separate sentences.
To create humanity in His image of capability to have integrity is the only way a sovereign God could cause the basis of salvation in a contingent world. (Think about it.)
Devised doctrine is worse than useless without teaching meanings.
Boys and girls help each other intuitively (until they are told not to). (I watched this.)
Being boys and girls together was never mainly about mating.
Gender theologians presume out of alleged ideology (which is materialistic manoeuvring) to intrude, to make us codependent, to usurp spiritual force, to undermine integrity, to prevent children from trading Holy Spirit gifts.
(The devil isn’t genuinely into ideology except as materialistic manoeuvring.)
That’s what the lie is. They divert blame onto Scripture and away from themselves. Any pastor has to be prepared to blame other, wrong pastors, not Scripture.
Thanks, Janet. I think in similar ways to you.
I once had a colleague whose child was born a hermaphrodite – having various sexual organs from both male and female. In an office where the female humour was possibly raunchier than any male place I worked, by tacit agreement jokes about that subject were avoided out of respect for the lady and her child. Sadly, I’d moved on well before a decision about their dominant gender had to to be made; I thus never knew how it ended, but have often wondered. The child would be about 38 by now.
That’s the only such case I’ve known, so as you say, it is indeed rare. But, if you believe that God had a hand in that child’s creation, then yes indeed, God made them, just as God also made my youngest granddaughter, born with cystic fibrosis. Why such things happen, or are allowed to happen, only God knows – although given the infinite fragility which is involved with conception and pre natal development, the potential for such things is enormous.
As I understand it, the divine is way, way beyond human sexual genders and, logically, must indeed include both male and female characteristics. Doesn’t Jesus refer to gathering his people as a mother hen does her chicks? There’s plenty of other female allusions, particularly in the psalms and prophets.
I’m intrigued by your interpretation of ‘Elohim’, incidentally – the only reference I was aware of is Genesis 6 v 2, where the NIV uses the same rendition, and it doesn’t sound as if God’s too pleased with his sons for their daliances! Nephillim, in the verse which follows, has only had a negative – indeed weird – implication in the very few references I’ve come across. Does the Hebrew suggest there’s a connection between the two verses? I honestly don’t know; one reason why I am very careful about giving Genesis too much authority.
That’s what we were told in our lectures on Genesis. And, as I understand it, ‘i’m’ is a plural ending. Any Hebrew scholars here?
‘im’. Blasted autocorrect!
I’m definitely not a Hebrew scholar, but I too was told “im” is the plural. Don’t modern day Jews refer to Gentiles as “goyim”? I thought the plural was taken as a hint of the Trinity. But I also read it could be an honorific. I’ve kind of assumed, dangerous word, that God must contain male and female characteristics and “essences”? Is that a good word? And “wisdom” is female. ..
Blokes are “daughters of Jerusalem”. Yes “elohim” is honorific.
Otherwise -im is ordinary plural. Goyim in Gen 14 meant “tribal” as in Pakistan and elsewhere to this day.
Nephilim were completely ordinary people and “sons of god” was one sect among many.
The authority issues are about de rigueur misinterpretations.
Yes, I was taught that ‘elohim’ is a hint at the Trinity. In what sense could it be an honorific?
In French, it’s polite to use the second person plural of you don’t know someone. Same sort of thing?
I’m not sure that French grammar compares with Hebrew. Gen 1:27 says, ‘Let us make man in our image…’
Stanley Monkhouse wrote on this subject from time to time. As both priest and anatomist he was uniquely qualified. I don’t know how much longer his blog will continue to be accessible, but here he is, opening in his own inimitable tongue in cheek style, followed by a serious discussion.
https://ramblingrector.me/2020/02/23/sex/
An excellent summary, not to be read if you’re at all squeamish, but much of the science here is succinctly put, if a little forthrightly (I wish I had the courage). Many sincere and devout Christian doctors will use this knowledge routinely in their everyday work.
I’m sad to report the death on August 11th of Stanley Monkhouse, a contributor to Surviving Church, and especially relevant to this thread as one who successfully combined distinguished careers in science and religion.
Among other medical appointments Stanley had held the position of The Professor of Anatomy of the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland. As a priest he had incumbencies in the Church of Ireland and the Church of England, latterly as Vicar of Burton upon Trent with responsibility for three churches, although he continued to take services elsewhere after retirement. He was also a Fellow of the Royal College of Organists. A many-talented man. May he rest in peace.
I’m very sorry to hear of his parting. Thanks for letting us know Rowland
Thanks for letting us know, Rowland. Stanley was commenting on Thinking Anglicans until a few days ago. We will miss him.
And rise in glory!
Stanley had been making his helpful comments to this blog for some years now. We will miss his comments and wise support. May he rest in peace.
Thank you Stanley, may you rise in glory.
Bless you Stephen for this blog and all contributors.
If I may, this further thought just posted on ‘Thinking Anglicans’:
“A further reflection on the passing of Stanley Monkhouse. To fully understand him, you had to be on his wavelength. His views, sometimes trenchantly, often controversially, expressed here on TA polarised different responses. He always found it painful that some people, and intelligent ones, misunderstood, or misrepresented, what he wrote which was always challenging the reader to think more deeply and consider possible alternatives. He expressed this in his very final published homily: “There are so many apparently brain-dead people in today’s increasingly narrow-minded C of E, so it’s hard work swimming against the tide”.
“This, notwithstanding, he was in retirement ministering regularly to the end. May he rest in peace.”
(I should add that very little of that controversy was here on Surviving Church.)
Stanley was a distinguished anatomist and yet readily bantered with a relative minnow in our shared field. In this sense he was unaffected by his rank.
Entering ordained ministry in his latter years, he embarked upon his final “dissection”, the Church of England. My sense was that he found it a highly resistant subject and frustratingly impossible to master. In this respect there are many of us here and elsewhere who share his frustration.
My condolences to all those who feel his loss more keenly.
Kind regards, Steve
I put a card through the door at Rangemore Street, Burton on Trent, last Sunday. A split-second glance at the front room as I approached the front door (no net curtains) revealed a large mass of cards evidently sent from well-wishers in at least several countries. He had lit up the lives of many. I am still bereft. A wonderful person.
Indeed.
Just announced in the Irish Times: A funeral service will be held at St Paul’s Church, St Paul’s Square, Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire, DE14 2FZ on Thursday, September 7 at 2.15pm (family flowers only).
A memorial service in Ireland will follow with a date to be confirmed.
Stanley always made me stop and think, for which I am eternally grateful. RIP and rise in glory. And condolences to his family and friends 🙏
I think this photograph perfectly captures the spirit of Stanley as I came to know him.
https://ramblingrector.me/2023/08/25/the-death-has-occurred-of-reverend-dr-stanley-monkhouse/
Sadly, it is almost certainly the final item to appear on his personal blog.