The General Synod Briefing Papers on Conversion Therapy

The second batch of papers for the July meeting of General Synod has now been published and within it are two briefing papers for the debate on ‘conversion therapy.’ These are the papers from Jayne Ozanne, GS 2070 A, and from the Church of England’s General Secretary, William Nye, GS2070 B.

Both papers are seriously problematic for a number of reasons.

First, there is a lack of proper theological reflection. William Nye’s paper has no theology in it at all and Jayne Ozanne’s paper has one paragraph dealing with theology.

This paragraph declares:

‘The Bible teaches us that we are each fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps.139.14), and that we should praise God’s gift of our creation. Thus, our diversity as human beings is a reflection of God’s creativity and something to celebrate. The biblical concern is not with what we are but how we choose to live our lives, meaning that differing sexual orientations and gender identities are not inherently sinful, nor mental health disorders to be ‘cured.’ [1]

The first two sentences of this paragraph are fine as far as they go, but the last sentence makes the paragraph misleading. It is not the case that because the Bible holds that we are created by God and that there is a diversity between human beings which should celebrated that this means that the Bible is unconcerned with what we are or that what we are is unconnected with how we should live our lives,

The creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 sets the framework for the rest of what the Bible has to say. It is the basis for everything that comes after. This account tells that human beings are created by God as his image bearers (Genesis 1:26), that they are created as male and female (Genesis 1:27) and that they are created by God to relate sexually to the other sex within marriage (Genesis 2:24) and by so doing to fulfil the mandate to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28).

This account tells us what we are as human beings and as such points us to how we should behave. It is because humans are created by God as embodied male and female beings who are called to relate sexually to the other sex within marriage that the Bible and the subsequent Christian tradition (including the Anglican tradition) has said that all sex outside marriage and all forms of same-sex sexual activity are inherently sinful and that the desire to engage in these forms of sexual activity is a result of the disorder caused by the Fall rather than a result of God’s good act of creation. Furthermore, because humans are created by God as embodied male and female beings, forms of gender identity that involve a rejection of this embodiment (as when a biological male claims to be female and vice versa) have also to be seen to be a result of the Fall rather than a consequence of creation and therefore as sinful.

Secondly, both papers note the claim that ‘conversion therapy’ should be banned because it does harm and is ineffective. What they inexcusably fail to point out is that the evidence for this oft repeated claim is missing. In an open letter to Jayne Ozanne, Dermot O’ Callaghan has publicly offered to pay £100 to charity if Ozanne can point to a scientific study that provides such evidence.[2] Thus far she has not taken him up on his offer which is unsurprising since no such study exists.

As Peter Ould has pointed out, the only rigorous scientific study of the issue in recent years is the 2011 study by Stanton L Jones and Mark Yarhouse entitled ‘A Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change.’[3] To quote Ould, this study followed ‘a number of individuals over a few years through a variety of religious orientated therapeutic approaches’ and ‘there was no statistically significant evidence of harm, even in those for whom the therapy ‘failed’ or who dropped out.’ [4]

Ould further notes that the study ‘was clear that there was no statistically significant change at the group level in their self-reported sexual orientation. Particular individuals reported change and others reported no change, and this fits anecdotal evidence elsewhere.’ However, he asks:

‘…. should a low success rate be a reason to ban a therapeutic group? Peer review studies indicate that the success rate for Alcoholics Anonymous (another spiritual based group therapy) is around five per cent to ten per cent (lower than the anecdotal success rates for forms of ex-gay therapy) and there is plenty of evidence of those who believe they have been harmed by the experience. Given the lower success rates and same reports of harm than conservative support groups for those who are not happy with their sexual orientation, should such alcoholics support therapies also be banned? If not, why not?’[5]

Thirdly, neither paper asks the question as to why the consensus of current medical opinion no longer regards sexual attraction to someone of the same-sex as a form of mental illness and therefore no longer sees it as something which for which therapy should be offered.

It is true that since 1973 national and international bodies have removed homosexuality from the list of mental health disorders and that this has resulted in the current consensus which the papers reflect. However, the evidence indicates that this change was not due to the discovery of new evidence, but rather to political activity by members of the gay rights movement.

For example, in his book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry Professor Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist sympathetic to the gay cause, notes that the landmark decision by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, which led to the changes that have subsequently taken place in other such organisations worldwide and that a reflected in the Synod briefing papers was a political rather than a scientific one:

‘The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators at psychiatric conventions to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in a sober consideration of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy….The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.’ [6]

Similar evidence is provided by the lesbian writers Kay Lahusen and Barbara Gittings in their book Making History: The struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights: 1945-1990: An Oral History:

‘Lahusen: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.

Gittings : It never was a medical decision – and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays firsts zapped the APA at a behaviour therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.’ [7]

The essentially political basis of the 1973 APA decision and others that have followed from it means that the current medical consensus should not be used as an argument for saying that same-sex attraction should not be viewed as a mental health issue. If you want to make this claim then you have to give some independent grounds for it based on a clear understanding of what a psychologically healthy way of life involves from a Christian perspective and neither of the General Synod papers does this.

Furthermore, there are a number of mental conditions, such as, for instance, addiction to alcohol or tobacco, that are not regarded as forms of mental illness, but which are regarded as undesirable and on that basis support is offered to people to manage or overcome them. Even if same-sex attraction should not be classified as a form of mental illness it could be, and has been, argued that it is an undesirable condition and that therefore it would likewise be right to offer people support to manage or overcome it.[8] This is not an argument which is considered by either paper.

Fourthly, neither paper looks at the implications of seeking to ban all forms of conversion therapy. At the moment the teaching of the Church of England remains that same-sex sexual activity is contrary to God’s will for his human creatures and consequently that Christians should not engage in such activity. What neither paper addresses is the question of how people should be helped to live according to such teaching when they  are sexually attracted to people of their own sex. If any attempt to use any form of therapy to help them control or change their desires or behaviour is off limits does not this in the end simply mean abandoning them?

Jayne Ozanne would probably say that they should be encouraged to embrace their sexual attraction and reject the teaching, but the Church of England could not in good conscience advocate this approach unless it came to believe theologically that its current teaching was wrong and as we have seen neither paper offers a convincing theological argument for making this move.

Rather than simply imposing a wholesale ban for which there appears to be no supporting evidence would it not be more responsible to for the Church of England to institute a rigorous study of different types of therapy to determine how best to help people who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria?

[1] GS 2070 A Paragraph 1.

[2] Dermot O’Callaghan, ‘An Open Letter to Jayne Ozanne’ text at

[3] Stanton L Jones and Mark Yarhouse, ‘A Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change.’ Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37, 2011. pp. 404–427,

[4] Peter Ould, ‘It’s easy to talk about banning gay conversion therapy. But how to do it – and where’s theevidence?, Christian Today, 23 June, 2017, text at:

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1987, pp.3-4. For more details see Robert R Reilly, Making Gay Okay, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014, Ch.7.

[7] Cited in Robert Reilly, Making Gay OK,Kindle Edition Loc, 2253. For further details about the APA decision see Reilly, op.cit, Ch.7 and Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996, Ch.1.

[8] For this argument see Satinover, op.cit. Ch. 3.

M B Davie 26.6.17

Jayne Ozanne on ‘spiritual abuse’

As well as seeking to persuade the Church of England to ban conversion therapy for those with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria Jayne Ozanne is now highlighting the issue of spiritual abuse as the next big issue which she thinks the Church will need to tackle.

Her paper on this issue, entitled ‘Spiritual abuse – the next great scandal for the Church,’[1] which was written for the Royal College of Psychiatrists, starts with a general definition of spiritual abuse, then narrows down to focus on abuse by charismatic groups and then narrows down still further to consider the spiritual abuse of LGBTI Christians.

No one with a proper belief in the way in which sin continues to indwell believers (see Articles IX and XV), or any experience of the life of the Church, will need any convincing about the possibility of those in the Church, including church leaders, misusing their position in the Church in a way that results in harm to others.

There cannot therefore be any objection in principle to the concept of ‘spiritual abuse.’ However, the first difficulty with Ozanne’s paper comes when she attempts to define precisely what is meant by ‘spiritual abuse.’

Ozanne adopts the definition of spiritual abuse offered by Dr. Liza Oakely in her book Breaking the silence on spiritual abuse.’ This defines the term as follows:

‘Spiritual abuse is coercion and control of one individual by another in a spiritual context. The target experiences spiritual abuse as a deeply emotional personal attack. This abuse may include: manipulation and exploitation, enforced accountability, censorship of decision making, requirements for secrecy and silence, pressure to conform, misuse of scripture or the pulpit to control behaviour, requirement of obedience to the abuser, the suggestion that the abuser has a ‘divine’ position, isolation from others, especially those external to the abusive context.’[2]

The problem with this definition is that it requires an awful lot of unpacking if it is going to be useful in practice. For example, what exactly is meant by coercion and control? What degree of influence by one person over another qualifies? What is meant by ‘pressure to conform’ and how does this differ from the normal expectation that someone will follow the beliefs and practices of the church to which they have chosen to belong? What is meant by ‘misuse of the scripture or the pulpit to control behaviour’ and how does this differ from any other exposition of the Bible’s teaching about Christian behaviour?

These questions may seem like nit picking, but if spiritual abuse is to become an accepted category in the life of the Church with disciplinary implications similar to those in force for other forms of abuse then the definition of abuse needs to be as tight as possible and what it means needs to be very clearly explained. Dr Oakely may offer such explanation in her book. Unfortunately it is absent from Ozanne’s paper.

Ozanne goes on to link abuse, and particularly what she calls ‘group abuse’ (when it is the whole community rather than a particular individual that inflicts the abuse), to charismatic Evangelical churches and networks.

What she does not do is justify singling out these churches and networks as more likely to abuse people than churches in other traditions. She offers no evidence that this is the case or indeed that abuse is taking place in the churches and networks she describes (some of which she names).

She also offers no explanation of the practices of these churches and networks she cites as forms of abuse nor any evidence that people are being harmed by them.

For example, she contends that their ‘unquestioned teaching on the Holy Spirit’ [3] is linked to abuse, but she does not explain what this teaching is, how she thinks it is linked to abuse, or what the evidence to support this claim is.

For another example, she lists as an abusive practice ‘Misusing ‘words of knowledge’ and/or ‘prophecy’ to control and subjugate people.’[4] What she doesn’t say is what is involved in misusing ‘words of knowledge’ or ‘prophecy’ in this way or what the evidence is that people are being harmed by this practice in the churches and networks which she names.

Without such explanation or evidence her argument necessarily fails to carry conviction. Anyone can allege that abuse is taking place. That is easy. The difficult part is substantiating that allegation and that Ozanne fails to do.

The problem of lack of evidence continues when she goes on to consider what she calls ‘The Spiritual abuse of LGBTI Christians.’ In this part of her paper Ozanne looks at the teaching given about homosexuality in an unspecified number of the churches and networks she has named, the forms of ministry given in these bodies to those with same-sex attraction and the sort of church discipline advocated by the Evangelical Alliance for those who persistently and unrepentantly engage in same-sex sexual activity.

Ozanne’s allegation is that these practices cause ‘significant long term harm’ to LGBTI Christians up to and including suicide.[5] This is an extremely serious allegation, but if we ask what evidence she gives to substantiate it the only thing we find is a reference to a 2017 paper from the Oasis Foundation[6] which links mental health issues among LGB people to discrimination against them by the churches and the way the churches contribute ‘negative views to debates about same-sex relationships in society and the media.’

However, as Peter Ould points out in a response to the Oasis paper ‘…. the problem with the Oasis paper is that it provides not one shred of research evidence that demonstrates a link between conservative Christian teaching and mental health outcomes for LGB people.’ [7]

Ould goes on to point out that the Oasis paper relied on ‘generalised research on minority stress and then tried to blame this on conservative churches’ and that it failed to engage with the 2012 research paper by Barnes and Meyer which showed that:

… contrary to the claims that Oasis make with no evidence to support them, LGB people do not have worse mental health outcomes when in ‘non-affirming’ church environments and indeed there is some evidence to suggest that attending a conservative church actually improves mental health for LGB people, even when they have significant internalized homophobia.[8]

To put it into plainer English, the research evidence does not show that LGB people suffer from worse mental health issues because they attend conservative churches and indeed may have improved mental health because they do so.

What all this means is that Ozanne gives us only one source to substantiate her allegation and this one source turns out itself to provide no evidence to back up its claims, claims which are contradicted by a substantial academically rigorous research study on the issue.

In response to this criticism, supporters of Ozanne’s position might well say that there is a large amount of anecdotal evidence from those who have suffered mental distress because of their involvement with churches that take a conservative stance on same-sex attraction and same-sex relationships. However, if they make this move they would have to address the fact that there is equally a growing body of anecdotal evidence from people who are same-sex attracted, but feel that they have benefited from the ministry of churches that take a conservative stance on these matters.[9]

The existence of such people and the testimonies they offer (both of which are completely ignored by Ozanne’s paper) means that the issue that needs to be explored is not simply why some people report being harmed by churches that take a conservative stance, but why is it that some people report being harmed whereas others report being helped. If the Church is going to address seriously the question of how to minister in a helpful way to people with same-sex attraction this is the issue that needs to be researched.


The point of Ozanne’s paper is to urge bodies external to the Church, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to call for action to be taken against spiritual abuse:

‘It is imperative that professional organisations external to the religious institutions call for better safeguarding measures against spiritual abuse. Indeed, they should look to recognise it as a key form of abuse at a national level so as to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are afforded the same protection as those facing other forms of abuse.’[10]

If put into practice what this would mean is that pressure would be put on churches to ban practices considered spiritual abuse in the same way that churches now take action to safeguard against abuse of children and adults when they are vulnerable. If Ozanne’s paper were to be followed, this would include a ban on teaching that the Bible opposes same-sex sexual activity and a ban on any form of church discipline for those engaging in such activity.

The problem with Ozanne’s paper, however, is that it frequently fails to describe the abuse it alleges sufficiently precisely to make it clear what she is talking about and it consistently fails to provide evidence that the practices she refers to actually cause harm. It also ignores the testimonies of those with same-sex attraction who report having been helped by the ministry of conservative churches.

It therefore fails to provide a clear or persuasive basis for either bodies such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, or the churches, to move in the direction she advocates. If safeguarding measures are to be put in place then we need to know precisely what is being safeguarded against and why. Ozanne’s paper fails to provide clarity on either point.

M B Davie 26.6.17


[1] Jayne Ozanne, Spiritual abuse – the next great scandal for the Church, Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2017.

Text at:

[2] Ibid, p.4.

[3] Ibid, p.6.

[4] Ibid, p.6.

[5] Ibid, p.8.

[6] The Oasis Foundation, In the Name of Love – the Church, Exclusion and LGB Mental Health Issues, London:

Oasis Foundation, 2017.

[7] Peter Ould, Church Teaching and LGB mental health,’ Psephizo, 13 February 2017, at

[8] Ibid referring to David M Barnes and Illan H Meyer, ‘Religious Affiliation, Internalized Homophobia, and

Mental Health in Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals,’ American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol 82(4), Oct

2012, pp. 505-515.

[9] For statements of this position see the testimonies on the Living out website at

[10] Ozanne, op.cit. p.9.

On not properly resourcing General Synod

When I attended my first meeting of the General Synod in November 1999 I sat in on a debate about the translation of the Nicene Creed. At the centre of this debate was an involved discussion of the best way to translate the Greek word ek in relation to Jesus’ birth from the Virgin Mary. Should it be translated ‘of’ or ‘from’?

This might seem to be incredibly arcane debate, but those engaged in it rightly thought that it mattered. The reason that it mattered was that the translation question raised important issues about how we should understand and express the central claim of the Christian faith that God became Man for our salvation in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

These issues needed to be resolved because it was important that what the Church of England said in its liturgy bore the most truthful witness possible concerning this matter. Because liturgy is the Church’s public corporate declaration of what it believes it behoved the Church of England to take as much trouble as was necessary to get its liturgy right.

I was reminded of this early experience of General Synod when I looked at the two briefing papers, GS 2071A from the Revd Chris Newlands and GS2017B from the Secretary General William Nye, which  were published yesterday to resource the forthcoming Synod debate on a motion from the Diocese of Blackburn calling the House of Bishops to consider commending liturgies to mark gender transition.

What struck me was the contrast between the theological seriousness of the debate on the translation of the Nicene Creed back in 1999 and the almost complete lack of theological seriousness shown in these two new resource papers. Neither of these papers attempts to address the key issue at the heart of the debate about the Blackburn motion, which is whether it would be theologically correct for the Church of England to express in its liturgy the belief that someone who is biologically male can nonetheless be a woman and that someone who is biologically female can nonetheless be a man. If the Church of England develops liturgies to mark gender transition, as Newlands invites it to do, then this is what it will be saying.

Neither of the resource papers explore either the grounds on which some people believe this belief to be true or the very serious grounds on which others (like me) believe that it is completely false. [1]

The nearest we get to a theological discussion of the matter are the references to Genesis 1:27, Galatians 3:28 and Matthew 19:12 in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Nye’s paper, but Nye fails to explain the relevance of these verses to the key issue under debate.

Newlands emphasises the theological importance of liturgy but fails to note that liturgy needs to be truthful in what it affirms about God and humanity in order to be spiritually beneficial or to explain why he thinks a liturgy afforming gender transition would be truthful.

Both resource papers refer to the House of Bishops memo HB(03)M1 which declares that different views about the issue of what it calls ‘transsexualism’ exist and can properly be held within the Church of England and say that this is the Church of England’s position. It is important to note four things about this memo, however.

  • The memo was not the result of a process of discussion and debate across the Church of England. The truth is that it was a memo produced at speed at a meeting of the House to prevent divisions within the House of Bishops as the Church of England entered into legal negotiations with the Government in the run up to the Gender Recognition Act of 2004.
  • The memo does not give any justification for why both views can ‘properly’ be held within the Church of England. It simply asserts that they can be.
  • What the memo says has never been discussed by either the General Synod or by the Church of England as whole. In fact there has been no discussion or debate at all about the transgender issue by the Church of England nationally. This means we are starting the debate from scratch, which makes the failure to provide adequate documentation even more serious.
  • If the proposal to develop commended liturgies to mark gender transition goes ahead then this will be a move away from the position taken by the memo because it will mean that the affirmation of gender transition will have become the position taken by the Church of England (even if people are permitted to dissent from it). This is because as the Latin tag has it lex orandi, lex credendi – what the Church prays is what it believes.

It is also worth noting that neither resource paper makes any reference whatsoever to the way in which the claim that gender transition is the best way to help someone with gender dysphoria is called into question by the available evidence, which fails to demonstrate that transition has a long term success rate in resolving the mental and physical health issues experienced by transgender people. Scepticism about gender transition is now being expressed both by well qualified experts in the field of mental health and by a growing number of people who are explaining the reasons why, having gone through gender transition, they then decided to revert back to living in their birth sex

Because the resource papers thus fail to address the key theological issue under discussion, fail to acknowledge the problems relating to an appeal the Bishops memo and fail to refer to the debate about whether gender transition is a beneficial way of treating gender dysphoria they are utterly inadequate as resources for a responsible debate in General Synod.

This being the case, the only responsible way forward is either for Synod to decline to consider the Blackburn motion on the grounds of having received inadequate preparatory material, or for Synod to amend the motion to call for a proper, in depth, discussion of the transgender issue across the Church.

M B Davie 17.6.17

[1] I have discussed the arguments from both sides in depth in my book Transgender Liturgies, which can be ordered or downloaded from the Latimer Trust website at

We have been this way before, reflections on Jayne Ozanne’s Private Member’s Motion

 The motion from Jayne Ozanne.

The timetable for the July General Synod has now been published and it has been revealed that Synod will be debating a Private Member’s Motion on ‘Conversion therapy’ moved by Jayne Ozanne that runs as follows:

‘That this Synod:

(a) endorse the statement of 16 January 2017 signed by The UK Council for Psychotherapy, The Royal College of General Practitioners and others that the practice of conversion therapy has no place in the modern world, is unethical, harmful and not supported by evidence; and

(b) call upon the Archbishops’ Council to become a co-signatory to the statement on behalf of the Church of England.’

The debate about deliverance ministry in the 1970s.

In order to gain a proper perspective on this motion it is helpful to recall that the Church of England was faced with a decision over a similar issue back in the 1970s.

In his book I Believe in Satan’s Downfall Michael Green recalls:

‘…when, in the early 1970s, the Bishop of Exeter in England chaired a serious Report on Exorcism, and when public attention was caught by a disastrous death after failure to administer exorcism properly, a large number of theologians were invited to sign an open letter deploring the credulity of those who thought that demons still existed or were foolish enough to believe in a personal devil.’[1]

To unpack the story more fully, the presenting issue was concern about the dangers of inappropriate forms of what we would now call the ministry of deliverance.

This raised the issue of whether the Church of England should engage in this form of ministry at all and behind this issue were two further questions: (a) should the Church of England continue to believe in the existence of the Devil and the demonic? and (b) did the Christian faith need to be re-expressed to appeal to a culture that felt that belief in the supernatural was an outmoded world view incompatible with the discoveries of modern science?[2]

In the event the Church of England declined to engage in wholesale re-construction of its theology into a non-supernatural form, continued to affirm the existence of the Devil and the demonic on the basis of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience[3] and continued to authorise and engage in the ministry of deliverance. However, it also met the proper concerns about the inappropriate exercise of this ministry by developing a set of guidelines for good practice which were issued by Archbishop Donald Coggan in 1975 and which are still in place today.

These guidelines state:

‘1. It should be undertaken by experienced persons authorized by the Diocesan Bishop;

2. It should be done in the context of prayer and sacrament;

3. It should be done in collaboration with the resources of medicine;

4. It should be followed up by continuing pastoral care;

5. It should be done with the minimum of publicity.’ [4]

There are three lessons which we can learn from this story.

First, the Church of England should decline to jettison its traditional theology, either in whole or in part, in order to fit in with contemporary culture unless there are compelling arguments from Scripture, tradition, reason and experience that show this would be the right thing to do.

Secondly, the Church of England should continue to exercise forms of ministry that are warranted by its theology.

Thirdly, where there are concerns about the inappropriate exercise of particular forms of ministry these should be addressed by the issuing of guidelines for good practice.

Applying these lessons to the Ozanne motion.

If we turn from what happened in the 1970s to the current Ozanne motion what we find is that the issues underlying the motion are the same as those that underlay the suggestion that the Church of England should abandon the ministry of deliverance. There is a concern about bad practice, but underlying that presenting issue is the deeper one of whether the Church of England needs to change its teaching to fit in with contemporary culture.

In the statement to which the motion refers, the term ‘conversion therapy’ is used to describe ‘therapy that assumes certain sexual orientations or gender identities are inferior to others, and seeks to change or suppress them on that basis.’ As we have seen, the statement also declares that such therapy ‘has no place in the modern world, is unethical, harmful and not supported by evidence.’[5]

This being the case, the Church of England could only consistently go down the route suggested by the Ozanne motion and sign up to the statement if it moved from its current teaching to an acceptance that (a) sexual attraction between people of the same sex is just as in accordance with God’s will as sexual attraction between a man and a woman and (b) that the identity adopted as a result of gender transition is as true a reflection of who someone truly is as their biological sex.  Any other position would imply that the Church of England still believed that ‘certain sexual orientations or gender identities are inferior to others.’

Furthermore, in order to maintain its consistency the Church of England would also have to go on to prohibit any form of teaching or practice that was not in accordance with this new position.  If it did not, it would be permitting activity that it accepted was ‘unethical,’ ‘harmful’ and had ‘no place in the modern world.’

If the Church of England were to go down this route it would be in line with the prevailing view in our culture (particularly amongst younger people) that restricting sexual intercourse to heterosexual marriage and insisting that someone’s identity is that of their biological sex is outmoded and, is, indeed, positively immoral because it is both ‘homophobic’ and ‘transphobic.’

However, in order for the Church of England to go down this route it would have to ignore the teaching of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience which convergently tell us that:

  • God has created human beings as embodied creatures who are male or female depending on the sex of their body; [6]
  • God has ordained that sexual intercourse should take place between one man and one woman in marriage as a means by which they are united with each other in a loving and permanent ‘one flesh’ union, as the normal means for the procreation of children and as a sign of the eternal union between God and his people;[7]
  • When people live lives that reflect these two truths this leads to the flourishing of both individuals and society as a whole. [8]
  • Because Christ died and rose and has poured out the Spirit it is possible for people to live lives that reflect these truths even if they have same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.[9]

For this reason it would not be a route that the Church of England could rightly go down, any more than it could have rightly adopted a non-supernatural form of theology, or denied the existence of the Devil or the demonic.

If people are to live according to the truths that have just been described, they may find it helpful to seek support through prayer and counselling as they seek to do so.

There is evidence that there are forms of prayer ministry and counselling that are inappropriate because they imply that those with same-sex attraction of gender dysphoria are less worthy as human beings, involve coercion or psychological manipulation, or make unjustified claims that unwanted feelings will disappear immediately, permanently and completely. However, as the Latin tag puts it, abusus non tollit usum, the abuse of something does not preclude its proper use. In the context we are considering this means that the fact that there are inappropriate forms of prayer ministry and counselling for those with same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria does not preclude the existence of those that are appropriate and beneficial, just as in the 1970s the Church of England rightly saw that the existence of inappropriate forms of deliverance ministry did not rule out the existence of legitimate ones.

What is required, as in the case of deliverance ministry, is guidelines for prayer ministry and counselling for those with same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria that will safeguard against abuse and outline good practice.

A better motion

 In the light of the above, rather than the current motion proposed by Jayne Ozanne a better motion would run along the following lines:

‘That this Synod:

a) Notes the statement of 16 January 2017 signed by The UK Council for Psychotherapy, The Royal College of General Practitioners and others concerning the practice of conversion therapy;

b) Affirms, nevertheless, that prayer ministry and counselling may be legitimate means of helping to support those with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria who are seeking to live in accordance with the Bible and the historic teaching of the Christian Church;

c) Acknowledges that  prayer ministry and counselling can take place in ways that fail to respect the proper dignity of human beings, involve coercion and manipulation and make unwarranted promises about the removal of unwanted feelings;

d) Asks the House of Bishops to draw up guidelines for work in this area to prevent forms of prayer ministry and counselling that are inappropriate and to encourage good practice.

M B Davie 3.6.17

Addendum  24.6.17

Andrew Symes has proposed the following helpful expansion of my original amendment which runs as follows:

‘That this Synod:

a) Notes the statement of 16 January 2017 signed by The UK Council for Psychotherapy, The Royal College of General Practitioners and others concerning the practice of “conversion therapy”, but also notes the findings of the Pilling Report and others that the research and studies underpinning such statements are far from conclusive.

b) Affirms, nevertheless, that prayer ministry, and counselling and therapy may be legitimate means of helping to support those with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria who are seeking to live in accordance with the Bible and the historic teaching of the Christian Church;

c) Acknowledges that prayer ministry and counselling all forms of therapy and pastoral care can take place in ways that fail to respect the proper dignity of human beings, involve coercion and manipulation and make unwarranted promises about the removal of unwanted feelings or other forms of physical and psychological transformation;

d) Asks the House of Bishops to draw up guidelines for work in this area to prevent forms of prayer ministry and counselling that are inappropriate and to encourage good practice and help ensure that Church-based pastoral ministry follows principles of being true to the teachings of Scripture and the freedom of choice of the individual.

[1] Michael Green, I Believe in Satan’s Downfall, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1981.

[2] This last point was most famously expressed in John Robinson’s Honest to God (London: SCM 1963).

[3] See Michael Green’s book for an extended argument on these lines.

[4] For a more detailed version of these guidelines see The House of Bishops’ Guidelines for Good Practice in the

Deliverance Ministry 1975 (revised 2012) text at

[5] Royal College of General Practitioners, UK organisations unite against Conversion Therapy, text at

[6] See Martin Davie, Transgender Liturgies, London: Latimer Trust, 2017.

[7] See Dennis P Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

[8] See Glynn Harrison, A Better Story, London: IVP, 2016.

[9] See Rosaria Butterfield, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant, 2ed,

2014, and Walt Heyer, A Transgender’s Faith, Walt Heyer, 2015.

On not being convinced – A review of the report from the Theological Forum of the Church of Scotland.

The questions raised by the report

The Theological Forum of the Church of Scotland exists to provide theological support for other Church of Scotland committees and for its General Assembly and to ‘produce reports of its own for matters which arise in the Church.’

Its latest report, entitled ‘An approach to the theology of same-sex marriage’ has been released this week.[1] It concludes that the Forum ‘does not believe there are sufficient theological grounds to deny nominated individual ministers and deacons the authority to preside at same-sex marriages.’(3 (c ) )[2]

In line with this conclusion the General Assembly is being asked to ‘Instruct the Legal Questions Committee to undertake a study of the matters which would require to be addressed in any new legislation permitting Ministers and Deacons to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies, with a view to presenting a Report to the 2018 General Assembly.’ (Proposed Deliverance 5)  In plain terms, what this means is the General Assembly asking for an immediate start to be made on the work needed to introduce same-sex marriages in the Church of Scotland.

The conclusion reached by the Theological Forum goes against the Church of Scotland’s traditional understanding of marriage as set out in Chapter XXIV of the Westminster Confession of 1646 which declares:

‘Marriage is between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.

Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.’

Clearly if marriage is between ‘one man and one woman’ then there can be no such thing as same-sex marriage.  It would be a contradiction in terms like a square triangle or a true falsehood. Only if this definition of marriage is broadened to include relationships between one and one man, or one woman and one woman, would it be possible to accept that there could be same-sex marriages and that it might be right to allow Church of Scotland ministers the authority to preside at them.

The questions that therefore arises are what arguments does the Theological Forum put forward for broadening the Church’s definition of marriage to include relationships between two people of the same sex and are these arguments convincing?[3]

Part 1 of the report

Part 1 of the Forum’s report looks at biblical interpretation under the heading ‘The Use of Scripture.’  This part sets out what it calls ‘more conservative’ and more inclusive’ approaches to the use of Scripture in the debate over same-sex marriage.

For example, in paragraphs 1.4-1.5 it argues that there are two key ‘more inclusive’ arguments:

‘The first is to say that Scriptural condemnations of same-sex sexual activity were framed in cultural contexts very different from our own and referred to individual acts rather than committed and faithful people willing to enshrine their relationships in vows before God. As committed and faithful partnerships between equal persons of the same sex were largely unknown in the ancient world, neither St. Paul nor any other biblical writer could have had such partnerships in mind when they condemned same-sex sexual activity.

Another more inclusive argument in favour of same sex relationships rests on a distinction between the written text of Scripture and the living Word of God, the latter being associated with Jesus Christ who speaks to us in our hearts and consciences. According to this argument, we owe our allegiance to Jesus Christ the Word made flesh rather than adherence to the literal words of Scripture, and, for that reason, if people believe that Jesus is now calling the Church to a new understanding of how faithfulness may be displayed in human relationships, this should be taken seriously as a contemporary form of obedience.’

It then goes on in paragraph 1.6 to argue that ‘more conservative arguments’:

‘…rest on a different set of interpretive rules. For them, once it is ascertained that the biblical writers intended to condemn same-sex acts, the only appropriate response for the Church to make is to declare such activity to be contrary to God’s intention for humanity, and thus prohibit same-sex marriage.’

As the report sees it, underlying these opposing arguments are two different approaches to the authority of Scripture.  It declares in paragraphs 1.8-1.9:

‘For those adopting a more conservative perspective, the authority of Scripture rests in obeying the words of its text. These words were given by God through the scribes and prophets and transmitted faithfully by Israel until they could be written down. We abide by the authority of Jesus Christ speaking in Scripture by correctly ascertaining what Scripture’s words meant in their original context, before conforming our doctrine and practice to them. It is not our duty to ascertain why God, speaking through the biblical writers, issued these commands, but only to ascertain the meaning of those commands and act upon them.

Those who adopt a more inclusive perspective also believe in the authority of Jesus Christ speaking in the Scriptures, and they also seek to understand the meaning of the words in their original context. What distinguishes them from more conservative readers, however, is their belief that Scripture’s meaning is somewhat wider than particular words themselves. In order to understand a biblical command, we must not only understand the meaning of the words in their original context, but also understand the many ways in which Scripture tells us a developing story in which believing Gentiles were also invited to join the People of God. In the present context, this means asking what Paul meant when he declared that in Christ we are neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, neither slave nor free.’

The report suggests that it would be a mistake to try to settle the argument between these two approaches with ‘a ‘victory’ for one particular perspective.’ in its view ‘a wise and faithful reading of the Bible’ requires both approaches.  (1.11)

It also suggests that we need to remember that God can also speak to us outside Scripture and that in particular ‘there are times when God speaks to us through the cries of God’s people who long for inclusion and dignity.’ (1.12)

There are three problems with this part of the report as a theological basis for broadening the definition of marriage.

First, it misrepresents the difference between the conservative and inclusive approaches to Scripture. It is simply not the case that those on the conservative side of the debate about marriage and sexuality do not think it appropriate to explore the reasons for God’s commands or that they focus on individual texts at the expense of considering the overall biblical story.  See, for example, Stanley Grenz Welcoming but not affirming (Westminster John Knox, 1998), Christopher West Theology of the Body Explained (Veritas 2008) and Glynn Harrison A Better Story (IVP 2016) as three among numerous texts that give the lie to this idea.

Secondly, although, as we have seen, it argues that it would be a mistake to grant ‘victory’ to either a conservative or an inclusive approach, in reality a decision has to be made between them in terms of what to believe and how to act. If one side says marriage can only be between two people of the opposite sex and the other says it can also be between two people  of the same sex then a choice has to be made as to which is right and what the Church should therefore permit. ‘Victory’ has to be granted to one side or the other.

The problem is that Part 1 gives no guidance at all as to how to decide which side should be granted victory. It may be the case, as paragraph 1.13 claims, that those on both sides of the debate ‘all esteem the living voice of Jesus Christ speaking in the Scriptures’ and that the difference is about ‘how these Scriptures are to be heard today.’ What Part 1 does not tells us, however, is on what basis we should decide how the Scriptures should be heard today when people interpret them differently.

How do we decide between legitimate and illegitimate interpretations of Scripture? The report does not say and because it does not say it provides no basis for saying that the conclusion that the report itself reaches is the right one.

Thirdly, Part 1 does not tell us what it means in terms of the debate about marriage to affirm that ‘God speaks to us through the cries of God’s people who long for inclusion and dignity.’ What the report presumably means is that God is saying that we should give heed to the cries of these people that they should be granted inclusion and dignity.  However, it does not logically follow that in order to include people with same-sex attraction in the corporate life of the Church and wider society and to treat them with dignity we have to allow them to marry someone of their own sex.

In order to establish this point it would be necessary to show that same-sex marriage is an integral part of inclusion and dignity. The report nowhere attempts to show this and so its argument that God speaks through the cries of those longing for inclusion and dignity does not lead to the report’s conclusion that we should accept same-sex marriage.

Part 2 of the report

Part 2 of the report looks at three types of arguments for same-sex marriage. These are:

(A) Arguments based on understandings of human rights

(B) Analogical arguments which try to build outwards from traditional understandings of marriage

(C) Fully theological arguments for the admissibility of same-sex marriage. (2.1)

Human rights arguments

In section 2.2 the report briefly summarises the development of the tradition of human rights in the Western world from the time of Constantine onwards and the criticisms of human rights theory offered by the American moral theologian Stanley Hauerwas and the Roman Catholic legal scholar Helen Alvares.

At the end of the section the report then declares that:

‘This tradition provides one layer of an argument and from it we become more aware of discrimination and our failure to treat each other even-handedly. We recognise that as a Church we have often failed to recognise and protect the identity and Christian vocation of gay people and believe that the Church as a whole should acknowledge its faults.’ (2.2.7)

This declaration fails to support the conclusion reached by the report for two reasons.

First, the report fails to explain how the Western tradition of human rights which it has summarised leads to the recognition that the Church has ‘failed to recognise and protect the identity and Christian vocation of gay people.’  What is the evidence that supports this claim? The report does not say and therefore provides no basis for accepting that this claim is true.[4]

Secondly, even if one does accept that the claim is true and that the Church needs to acknowledge its past failures in its treatment of gay people it does not follow that the proper response to this is an acceptance of same-sex marriage. This only follows if it is in fact the case that being able to marry someone of the same sex is a necessary corollary of recognising and protecting the identity of gay people and enabling them to fulfil their Christian vocation. Once again the report does not explain why we should believe that this is the case.

Analogical arguments

In section 2.3 the report draws on the work of the American Roman Catholic Scholar Professor Jean Porter as set out in her paper ‘The Natural Law and Innovative Forms of Marriage: A Reconsideration.’ [5]

Drawing on Porter’s expertise on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas and medieval moral theology in general, the section surveys the historical development of Christian thinking about marriage and suggests that we may be able to see an analogy between the extension of marriage to those who are unable to have children and its extension to those of the same sex. It argues that marriage:

‘…is more than simply the sexual act and it becomes clearer that though marriage has a paradigmatic form, this need not necessarily prevent extending the term to a group of other unions which cannot fulfil the reproductive purpose but can embody other aims of the institution. ‘Marriage’ is already extended to heterosexual couples who know they cannot have children. We do this because we know that marriage is more than a framework for legitimate genital acts. It is also a framework for supporting the mutual and publicly declared love between two people. Just as it would be unjust to deny use of the term ‘marriage’ to people past childbearing, so it can seem unjust to deny the term ‘marriage’ to same-sex couples who intend to fulfil most of the range of ‘marriage’s’ purposes.’ (2.3.22-2.3.24)

The problem with this argument is that it fails to take into account the point made by Sherif Girgis, Robert George and Ryan Anderson in their 2011 paper ‘What Is Marriage?’ They point out that marriage as it has been traditionally understood in line with the teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 is a form of relationship that can encompass infertile couples, but cannot encompass couples of the same sex.

They begin their argument by noting that marriage is a uniquely comprehensive form of relationship:

‘Marriage is distinguished from every other form of friendship inasmuch as it is comprehensive. It involves a sharing of lives and resources, and a union of minds and wills—hence, among other things, the requirement of consent for forming a marriage. But on the conjugal view, it also includes organic bodily union. This is because the body is a real part of the person, not just his costume, vehicle, or property. Human beings are not properly understood as non-bodily persons—minds, ghosts, consciousnesses—that inhabit and use non personal bodies. After all, if someone ruins your car, he vandalizes your property, but if he amputates your leg, he injures you. Because the body is an inherent part of the human person, there is a difference in kind between vandalism and violation; between destruction of property and mutilation of bodies. Likewise, because our bodies are truly aspects of us as persons, any union of two people that did not involve organic bodily union would not be comprehensive—it would leave out an important part of each person’s being. Because persons are body‐mind composites, a bodily union extends the relationship of two friends along an entirely new dimension of their being as persons. If two people want to unite in the comprehensive way proper to marriage, they must (among other things) unite organically—that is, in the bodily dimension of their being.’[6]

They then go on to argue that organic union can only achieved if two bodies unite for a common biological purpose and the only candidate that fits the bill is coitus oriented to sexual reproduction:

‘…for two individuals to unite organically, and thus bodily, their bodies must be coordinated for some biological purpose of the whole. That sort of union is impossible in relation to functions such as digestion and circulation, for which the human individual is by nature sufficient. But individual adults are naturally incomplete with respect to one biological function: sexual reproduction. In coitus, but not in other forms of sexual contact, a man and a woman’s bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. They perform the first step of the complex reproductive process. Thus, their bodies become, in a strong sense, one—they are biologically united, and do not merely rub together—in coitus (and only in coitus), similarly to the way in which one’s heart, lungs, and other organs form a unity: by co‐ordinating for the biological good of the whole. In this case, the whole is made up of the man and woman as a couple, and the biological good of that whole is their reproduction.’ [7]

This kind of organic union can be achieved, they note, in sexual acts between men and women that do not lead to conception. However, they cannot be achieved in sexual acts between two people of the same sex:

‘…this union occurs even when conception, the bodily good toward which sexual intercourse as a biological function is oriented, does not occur. In other words, organic bodily unity is achieved when a man and woman coordinate to perform an act of the kind that causes conception. This act is traditionally called the act of generation or the generative act; if (and only if) it is a free and loving expression of the spouses’ permanent and exclusive commitment, then it is also a marital act.

Because interpersonal unions are valuable in themselves, and not merely as means to other ends, a husband and wife’s loving bodily union in coitus and the special kind of relationship to which it is integral are valuable whether or not conception results and even when conception is not sought. But two men or two women cannot achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate, reproduction being the only candidate.[8] This is a clear sense in which their union cannot be marital, if marital means comprehensive and comprehensive means, among other things, bodily.’ [9]

They summarise their argument by providing a sporting analogy to illustrate the point they are making:

‘… people who can unite bodily can be spouses without children, just as people who can practice baseball can be team‐ mates without victories on the field. Although marriage is a social practice that has its basic structure by nature whereas baseball is wholly conventional, the analogy highlights a crucial point: Infertile couples and winless baseball teams both meet the basic requirements for participating in the practice (conjugal union; practicing and playing the game) and retain their basic orientation to the fulfillment of that practice (bearing and rearing children; winning games), even if that fulfillment is never reached. On the other hand, same‐sex partnerships, whatever their moral status, cannot be marriages because they lack any essential orientation to children: They cannot be sealed by the generative act.’ [10]

This argument by Girgis, George and Anderson shows why the argument put forward in the report that it is unjust to extend marriage to infertile couples but not to same-sex couples falls down.  Just as it is not unjust to say that people who are physically incapable of the physical activity involved cannot play baseball, so it is not unjust to say that same-sex couples cannot marry because same-sex couples are inherently incapable of the organic bodily union oriented towards procreation which is at the heart of marriage. In terms of the language used in the book of Genesis the two cannot become ‘one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24).

Theological Arguments

In the final section of part 2 the report turns to what it calls ‘the more thoroughgoing theological argument’ (2.4.2) presented by Professor Robert Song of the University of Durham in his 2014 book Covenant and Calling.[11]

The report notes that Song contends that the coming of Jesus ‘re-situates’ marriage:

‘Song argues that with Jesus, the entire notion of what it means to be human, to flourish, to live in relationship with God and our neighbours, is reoriented. ‘[F]ull humanity, full participation in the imaging of God, is possible without marriage, without procreation, indeed without being sexually active.’  He argues that though one might think that the new eschatological order in Jesus might erase the created order, this is not so. He thinks in terms of resituating, not erasure. But ‘marriage no longer carries the aura of inevitability.’

Jesus himself spoke about the need for new wine being placed in new wine bottles, and the impracticality of stitching new unshrunk cloth onto an old garment. These are images not of erasure but of resituating. Song writes, ‘The coming of Christ resituates marriage. Not only does it make it evident that marriage may not be grounded un-theologically outside an understanding of God’s covenant relationship with us, it also bursts the seams of marriage and points to a new eschatological order in which marrying and giving in marriage, and therefore procreation, are no longer part.’ (2.4.8-2.4.9)

The report then goes on to suggest that the notion of marriage being re-situated allows us to consider the possibility of non-procreative unions (such as marriages between two people of the same sex).

‘We have seen with Jean Porter that marriages may have meaning apart from procreation. Song’s notion of eschatological re-situating allows us to reconsider same sex unions in a more strictly theological way. In creation, the purpose of male and female was for procreation. So, within that mind-set, sexual differentiation was for procreation. But if procreation is not now essential for the growth of the Kingdom of God and has in a sense been eclipsed, it is possible to consider unions which are not procreative, but which still bear witness to God as they echo God’s faithfulness and therefore God’s holiness.’  (2.4.10)

The report acknowledges that it might be objected:

‘…that if the coming of Christ opened up a new appraisal for non-procreative unions and so for covenanted sexual unions between persons of the same sex, then Paul might have been expected to have understood this rather than affirming the Genesis understanding of gender and sexuality in his condemnation of same-sex acts in Romans 1.’ (2.4.14)

Its response to this objection is that:

‘…. God’s Word is found through as well as within Scripture, and Jesus himself promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into further understanding (cf. John 16: 13). It is these new understandings that the General Assembly is attempting to discern in its consideration of the issue of same-sex marriages.’

There are three problems with this argument for same-sex marriages on the basis of Song’s idea of the re-situation of marriage.

Firstly, there is nothing in the gospels to suggest that the fact that marriage as we know it[12] will not exist in the world to come means that what we are taught in Genesis about the nature and purpose of marriage in this world no longer applies.

It is true that in all three Synoptic Gospels Jesus is recorded as saying that in God’s eternal kingdom ‘those accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection’ (Luke 20:35-36//Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25). It is explicitly stated in these passages that there will be no marriage and from this fact, and from the statement that those who have attained the kingdom will be ‘like the angels’ as Matthew and Mark put it, it is inferred that there will also be no procreation.

However, it is important to note that none of the three Synoptic passages which record this teaching of Jesus contain any suggestion that the importance of marriage in this life should be regarded as less important because of what will be the case in the life of the world to come. These passages are concerned with defending belief in the resurrection against the claim of the Sadducees that the Mosaic law concerning Levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 showed that resurrection was an impossible concept because it would involve, among other things, a wife being married to seven men simultaneously. What they are not concerned with is the status of marriage in this life.

Jesus’ teaching about the nature and status of marriage in this life is found in his teaching about divorce in Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12. In these passages he teaches that marriage as ordained by God at creation, a permanent exclusive relationship between one man and one woman, remains unchanged. There is no suggestion that there is any change because of the coming of the kingdom.

Jesus also makes clear in Matthew 19 that the alternative to heterosexual marriage is sexual abstinence (‘being a eunuch’). There is no hint of any non-procreative same-sex alternative form of marriage.

Secondly, the notion that procreation is not necessary ‘for the growth of the kingdom of God’ is unconvincing.  It is true that the coming of God’s kingdom does not take place because people have children. This is an idea which no one has ever suggested. The coming of God’s kingdom takes place because Jesus becomes incarnate and dies and rises for the salvation of the world.

However, this does not mean that procreation lacks eschatological significance. The promise to Abraham that he will have innumerable descendants (Genesis 15:5) is fulfilled in two key ways. It is fulfilled through conversion when those who are adults decide to become members of God’s people and thus citizens of God’s kingdom. It is also fulfilled when Christian parents beget children who are brought up to know and love God and become citizens of God’s kingdom as a result.

The latter point is what is implied in the Westminster Confession when it talks about one of the purposes of marriage being to provide the Church ‘with an holy seed.’ This says that the point of Christians having children is to beget the next generation of the Church and thus further populate the kingdom. The same point is made more expansively in the homily ‘Of the State of Matrimony’ in the Church of England’s Second Book of Homilies. It declares that one of the purposes for which marriage is ordained is:

‘…that the Church of God and his kingdom, might by this kind of life, be conserved and enlarged, not only in that God giveth children, by his blessing, but also, in that they be brought up by their parents godly, in the knowledge of God’s word, that this knowledge of God, and true religion, might be delivered by succession, from one to another, that finally many might enjoy that everlasting immortality.’[13]

The argument that procreation within marriage is unimportant in relation to the growth of the kingdom of God is thus mistaken. Christian marriages are one of the main means by which the kingdom is populated.

The converse is also true. As Mary Eberstadt argues in her book How the West Really Lost God, a good case can be made out for saying that the decline of the Church in the West has been the result of the collapse of traditional family structures. As she puts it ‘family decline in turn helps to power religious decline.’[14]  What this means is that those who are really interested in the growth of the kingdom of God should be seeking to support and encourage the traditional family and in particular the importance of having children rather than downplaying their significance.

Thirdly, there is nothing objectionable in principle in the argument that the Holy Spirit guides the Church through the witness of Scripture to discern truths that are not contained in Scripture itself. Scripture does not address every specific issue and situation which the Church faces during the course of its history and so the Church requires guidance by the Spirit which goes beyond what Scripture explicitly says although in accordance with it. [15]

However, in any given case it needs to be shown that the Church is actually being guided to discern truth. This means a persuasive case needs to be made out as to why what we know on the basis of Scripture leads us to view a new issue or situation in one way rather than another. In relation to the issue of same-sex marriage a case would need to be made out as to why the witness of Scripture leads us to believe that the Church should celebrate same-sex marriages in those jurisdictions, such as Scotland, where they are legal. As we have seen, the report fails to make out such a case. The report fails to show that there is anything at all in Scripture that points us in this direction.

The report also fails to engage at all with the detailed biblical arguments against the acceptance of same-sex relationships contained in section 7 of the 2013 report of the Church of Scotland’s Theological Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry.[16]


In this paper we have looked at the arguments put forward by the Church of Scotland’s Theological Forum for broadening the Church’s definition of marriage to include relationships between two people of the same sex.  What we have discovered is that none of them is convincing.

This means that the body of the report does not support its conclusion that the Church of Scotland should begin the process that will lead to the authorisation of same-sex marriages in the Church of Scotland.  The General Assembly should reject this report and the Deliverance based on it and should instead commission a new report with the mandate to engage seriously with the biblical evidence set out in section 7 of the 2013 report.

M B Davie 20.4.17

[1] It can be found on the Church of Scotland web site at:

[2] Figures in brackets refer to the paragraph numbers in the report.

[3] It has been suggested that what the report is arguing for is retaining the Church of Scotland’s current doctrine of marriage while still allowing ministers to officiate at the weddings of same-sex couples. This is not what the report argues. It proposes a change in the Church’s current understanding of marriage to one that would retain the idea of  ‘Consent within a covenanted relationship between two persons’  (3b), but would not hold that those two people have to be a man and a woman.

[4] This means that the report fails to provide any reason for the General Assembly to accept point 4 of the Proposed Deliverance which invites the Church ‘to take stock of its history of discrimination at different levels and in different ways against gay people and to apologise individually and corporately and seek to do better.’

[5] Jean Porter, ‘The Natural Law and Innovative Forms of Marriage: A Reconsideration.,’ Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics , 30, 2 (2010), pp. 79-9.7

[6] ‘S Girgis, R P George and R T Anderson,’ What is marriage?’ The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol 34, No 1, Winter 2011, p.253.

[7] Ibid, p.254.

[8] Footnote 16 notes that pleasure cannot fit the bill: ‘Pleasure cannot play this role for several reasons. The good must be truly  common and for the couple as a whole, but pleasures (and, indeed, any psychological good) are private and benefit partners, if at all, only individually. The good must be bodily, but pleasures are aspects of experience. The good must be inherently valuable, but pleas-ures are not as such good in themselves—witness, for  example,  sadistic  pleasures.’

[9] Ibid, pp.254-255.

[10] Ibid, p. 257.

[11] Robert Song, Covenant and Calling: Towards a Theology of Same -Sex Relationships, London: SCM, 2014,

[12] As Glynn Harrison notes ‘The Bible does not teach that there will be no marriage in heaven. Rather it teaches that there will be one marriage in heaven- between Christ and his bride, the church. A Better Story, Kindle Edition, Loc.2086.

[13] Ian Robinson (ed), The Homilies, Bishopstone: Brynmill/Preservation Press, 2006, p.363.

[14] Mary Eberstadt, How the West Really Lost God, West Conshohocken: Templeton Press, 2013, Introduction.

[15] Richard Hooker’s The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity develops this point in detail.

[16] Theological Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry, Edinburgh: APS Group, 2013, Section 7.

What the Resurrection means and why it matters.

On Easter Sunday the Church of England, like other Christian churches, celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In this post I am going to explore two questions. ‘What does it mean to say that Jesus Christ rose again from the dead?’ and ‘Why does the resurrection matter?’

What does it mean to say that Jesus Christ rose from again the dead ?

The answer given to this question by the Church of England in Article IV of the Thirty Nine Articles runs as follows:

‘Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day.’

The understanding of the nature of the resurrection put forward in this article is helpfully explained by William Beveridge in his commentary on the Thirty Nine Articles. Using the term ‘hell’ to refer to the place of the dead rather than the final place of everlasting punishment, he writes:

‘…Christ did truly rise from death. As he did truly suffer, was truly crucified, truly dead, truly buried, and did truly descend into hell; so did he also truly rise again from death. The soul of Christ; being breathed from his body, went down to hell; the body of Christ, being deprived of its soul, was carried to the grave. And here they both continued, the one in the grave, and the other in hell, until the third day after the divorce was made: at which time the soul that went from the body down to hell, comes up again from hell unto the body. And, as it left the body upon the cross, it now finds it in the grave; even the self-same body that, three days before, was nailed to the cross; not any way broken, be-mangled or corrupted, but in the same condition the soul had left it in. This self-same body, which the soul before was forced from, is it now again united to. After which union of the soul to the body, immediately follows the return, or resurrection both of soul and body from the state of death. The separation of the soul from the body had brought (though not the soul, yet) the human nature into a state of death; the union of the soul to the body brings it back again to the state of life. So that Christ after his resurrection, as well as before his passion, had all things appertaining to the human nature; having the same soul and the same body, the same flesh and the same bones that he had before, and the same of everything that belongeth to the perfection of man’s nature.’

If we ask what the evidence is that Jesus rose from the dead in soul and body in the way summarised in Article IV and expounded by Beveridge the answer is twofold.

First, in the first century Jewish context belief in the resurrection meant precisely the re-embodiment of a disembodied soul in a resurrected body in the way described by Beveridge. As Tom Wright has argued in detail in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, what ‘resurrection’ meant for first century Jewish thinkers was ‘life after life after death.’ That is to say, they believed that when someone died their soul left their body, but continued to exist in a disembodied state in the place of the dead (referred to variously as ‘sheol,’ ‘hades’ or ‘hell’). This was ‘life after death.’ However at the end of time God would finally undo physical death, the bodies of the dead would be brought back to life and the souls of the dead would be re-united with them. This was ‘resurrection’ or ‘life after life after death.’

What this means is that when the New Testament talks about the ‘resurrection’ of Jesus its use of the term necessarily implies not that his soul continued to exist in some disembodied post-mortem state, or that his influence lived on in some vague fashion, but that in his case the resurrection of the dead expected at the end of time had already occurred with his soul being re-united with his resurrected body.

Secondly, the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection contained in the New Testament all point us in the same direction.

In the Gospels we find the view of the resurrection put forward by Article IV and by Beveridge supported by the accounts of the empty tomb (Matthew 28:1-8, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-11, John n 20:1-18) The reason the tomb is empty is because the body of Jesus has been raised. It is also supported by the encounters of the disciples with the risen Jesus.  Jesus is specifically said not to be a ‘ghost’ (i.e. a disembodied soul) but someone with a body who is capable of being seen, talking, walking, eating food and being touched (Luke 24:36-43, see also Luke 24:30, Matthew 28:9, and John 20:26-28, 21: 9-14). It is clear that his body could do things that normal bodies cannot, such as appear and disappear and go through locked doors (Luke 24:31, John 20:19 and 26). In context, however, it is clear that this does not mean that the body is any way unreal. It is simply that it is a body that through God’s power is able to do things that are not normally possible.

In Acts 2:22-34 St. Peter’s exposition of Psalm 16 on the day of Pentecost makes clear that what had not happened to King David had happened to Jesus. King David remained dead with his soul in hades and his body in a well-known Jerusalem tomb, but Jesus was alive with his soul liberated from hades and his body freed from the corruption of death.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 St. Paul repeats what Gordon Fee in his commentary on I Corinthians describes as: ‘…a very early creedal formulation that was common to the entire church.’ This formulation declares that ‘Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.’

As Fee goes on to say, the clause ‘that he was buried’:

‘…functions to verify the reality of the death. In the present context it emphasizes the fact that a dead corpse was laid in the grave, so that the resurrection that follows will be recognized as an objective reality, not merely a ‘spiritual’ phenomenon. Therefore, even though the point is incidental to Paul’s own concern, this very early expression of Christian faith also verifies the reality of the empty tomb stories. It is common in some quarters of NT scholarship to deny this latter, but that seems to be a case of special pleading. The combined emphasis on death, burial and third day resurrection would have had an empty tomb as its natural concomitant, even if not expressed in that way. Given this language, embedded in the heart of the earliest tradition, the early Christians and Paul would find it unthinkable that some would deny that they believed that the tomb was also empty, or that those stories were the creation of a later generation that needed ‘objective verification’ of the resurrection. One may not believe that Jesus rose and that the tomb was therefore empty; but one may scarcely on good historical grounds deny that they so believed.’

The statement in 1 Corinthians that Christ was raised ‘on the third day’ also points us in the same direction. To quote Wright again:

‘The phrase ‘after three days’, looking back mainly to Hosea 6:2 is frequently referred to in rabbinic mentions of the resurrection. This does not mean that Paul or anyone else in early Christianity supposed that it was a purely metaphorical statement, a vivid way of saying ‘the biblical hope has been fulfilled’. In fact, the mention of any time-lag at all between Jesus’ death and his resurrection is a further strong indication of what is meant by the latter: not only was Jesus’ resurrection in principle a dateable event for the early Christians, but it was always something that took place, not immediately upon his death, but a short period thereafter. If by Jesus ‘resurrection’ the early church had meant that they believed he had attained a new state of glory with God, a special kind of non-bodily post-mortem existence, it is difficult to see why there should have been any interval at all; why should he have had to wait? If, however, the early church knew from the first that something dramatic had happened on the third day (counting inclusively) after the Friday when Jesus died, then not only the appeal to Hos. 6.2 and the wider tradition thereby represented, but also the shift represented by the Christian use of Sunday as ‘the lord’s day’, is fully explained. ‘

What all this means is that when St. Paul goes on to mention the list of the earliest witnesses to the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:5, and then goes on to add some more witnesses of his own in verses 6-8, he is telling us about is people who did not simply have subjective visionary experiences, but people who had an actual historical encounter with the Jesus who was able to appear to them because he was no longer dead but had on the third day been raised from the grave in body and in soul, with his tomb being empty as a result.

Why the resurrection matters

Acceptance of the reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ still leaves us with the question of why this event matters. Within the Bible Jesus is not the only person who is described as returning from the dead. This is also true, for example, of the son of the widow of Zarephath (1Kings 17:17-24), of Lazarus (John 11:1-44) and of the dead saints in Jerusalem mentioned by St. Matthew (Matthew 27: 51-53).  What, then, is it about the resurrection of Jesus that makes it uniquely important?

Article IV itself does not answer this question, but the answer given to it by the Elizabethan Church of England and presupposed by the Article is contained in the homily ‘Of the Resurrection of Our Saviour Jesus Christ’ in the Second Book of Homilies.

This homily tells us that Jesus’ resurrection was uniquely significant because by it, as the completion of what he achieved on the cross, Jesus defeated sin, death and the devil and achieved new life and righteousness for all believers. The homily declares:

‘If death could not keep Christ under his dominion and power, but that he arose again, it is manifest that his power was overcome. If death be conquered, then must it follow that sin, wherefore death was appointed as the wages (Romans 6:23), must be also destroyed. If death and sin be vanished away, then is the devil’s tyranny vanished, which had the power of death, and was the author and brewer of sin, and the ruler of hell. If Christ had the victory of them all by the power of his death, and openly proved it by his most victorious and valiant resurrection (as it was not possible for his great might to be subdued of them) and it is true, that Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification; why may not we, that be his members by true faith, rejoice and boldly say with the Prophet Osee, and the Apostle Paul, Where is thy dart, O death? Where is thy victory, O hell? Thanks be unto God, say they, which hath given us the victory by our Lord Christ Jesus (Hosea 13:14, 1 Corinthians 15:55, 57).’

It then goes on to say:

‘This is the mighty power of the Lord, whom we believe on. By his death, hath he wrought for us this victory, and by his resurrection, hath he purchased everlasting life and righteousness for us. It had not been enough to be delivered by his death from sin, except by his resurrection we had been endowed with righteousness. And it should not avail us, to be delivered from death, except he had risen again, to open for us the gates of heaven, to enter into life everlasting. And therefore St Peter thanketh God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for his abundant mercy, because he hath begotten us saith he unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death, to enjoy an inheritance immortal, that never shall perish, which is laid up in heaven for them that be kept by the power of God through faith (1 Peter 1:3-5). Thus hath his resurrection wrought for us life and righteousness. He passed through death and hell, to the intent to put us in good hope, that by his strength we shall do the same. He paid the ransom of sin, that it should not be laid to our charge. He destroyed the devil and all his tyranny, and openly triumphed over him, and took away from him all his captives, and hath raised and set them with himself, among the heavenly citizens above (Ephesians 2.6). He died, to destroy the rule of the devil in us: and he rose again, to send down his Holy Spirit to rule in our hearts, to endow us with perfect righteousness.’

The homily also follows St. Paul in declaring that the resurrection has consequences for Christian behaviour. It is not only something to believe in intellectually as a historical fact, but also a summons to a new way of life:

‘…as Christ was raised up from death by the glory of the Father, so let us rise to a new life, and walk continually therein (Romans 6:2-4) that we may likewise as natural children live a conversation to move men to glorify our Father which is in heaven (Matthew 5.16). If we then we be risen with Christ by our faith to the hope of everlasting life: let us rise also with Christ, after his example, to a new life, & leave our old. We shall then be truly risen, if we seek for things that be heavenly, if we have our affection on things that be above, and not on things that be on the earth. If ye desire to know what these earthly things be which ye should put off, and what be the heavenly things above, that ye should seek and ensue, St Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians declareth, when he exhorteth us thus. Mortify your earthly members and old affections of sin, as fornication, uncleanness, unnatural lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is worshipping of idols, for the which things, the wrath of God is wont to fall on the children of unbelief, in which things once ye walked, when ye lived in them But now put ye also away from you, wrath, fierceness, maliciousness, cursed speaking, filthy speaking, out of your mouths. Lie not one to another, that the old man with his works be put off, and the new be put on (Colossians 3.1-2, 5-9). These be the earthly things which Saint Paul moved you to cast from you, and to pluck your hearts from them. For in following these, ye declare yourselves earthly and worldly. These be the fruits of the earthly Adam. These should ye daily kill, by good diligence, in withstanding the desires of them, that ye might rise to righteousness. Let your affection from henceforth be set on heavenly things, sue and search for mercy, kindness, meekness, patience, forbearing one another, and forgiving one another. If any man have a quarrel to another, as Christ forgave you, even so do ye (Colossians 3:12-13) If these and such other heavenly virtues ye ensue in the residue of your life, ye shall show plainly that ye be risen with Christ, and that ye be the heavenly children of your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:45), from whom, as from the giver, cometh these graces and gifts (James 1.17). Ye shall prove by this manner, that your conversation is in heaven, where your hope is: and not on earth, following the beastly appetites of the flesh (Philippians 3.20).’


In conclusion, therefore, we can say that what the resurrection means is that on the third day after Jesus died his soul was re-united with his resurrected body. This event matters because as the completion of the act of salvation which Jesus began when he died on the cross it means the defeat of sin, death and the devil and the beginning of a new life of righteousness for all who believe.  This event also matters because it is a summons to a new way of living. If we have been given new life through Jesus’ resurrection then we have to start living this new life and we do this by turning away from our old life of sin and embracing the new life of holiness which Jesus resurrection has made possible. To quote a Michael Green book title ‘new life, new lifestyle.’




A view over the horizon: the future of the Church of England, challenges, issues and opportunities (a presentation to Peterborough DEF).

       1. Probability as the guide of life

The title for this talk was inspired by a striking picture I saw a few years ago at the Towner art gallery in Eastbourne. This picture was a photograph taken over the horizon on the international dateline in the Bering Strait between Alaska and Siberia and showed the dawn breaking over the Siberian side of the strait. Because it was a photograph taken from east to west over the dateline it was literally a view into tomorrow.

Now most of us cannot literally see into tomorrow. We cannot see ‘over the horizon’ and know what tomorrow will bring. However, we have to act as though we could. We have to make decisions about what we think will happen in the future and plan accordingly. In the words of James 3:15 we have to say ‘If the Lord wills, we shall live and we shall do this or that’ and act on that basis.

It would be possible to make the basis of our action pure chance. We could just make all our decisions about the future by tossing a coin or throwing a dice, but most of us don’t. This is because, although we cannot know the future with absolute certainty, experience shows us that most of the time there tends to be continuity between the past, the present and the future and that when we assume such a continuity and act upon it things work better. For example, I know that the coach to Oxford I need to catch if I am going to do a morning’s teaching at Wycliffe Hall leaves Buckingham Palace Road in London at 6.40 a.m. I cannot be absolutely certain that on any given morning the coach will leave at that time (or even that there will be any coach at all). However, experience shows me that if I want to get to Wycliffe on time acting on the belief that the coach will probably depart at its normal time is a good idea. As the great Anglican theologian Joseph Butler noted back in the eighteenth century, we have to act on the basis of what we think is probable and this is determined by what has happened in the past or is happening now.

What is true of individuals is also true of churches. Churches have to decide how to act and this means that they have to decide what they think the future is going to look like. As in the case of individuals, they need to make the basis of their decisions the belief that there will probably be a general continuity between the future and the past and the present because experience shows that things work better if decisions are made on this basis.

There are, of course, examples that can be cited to challenge this belief. In the case of the Church of England a good example is the 1964 report by Leslie Paul The Deployment and Payment of the Clergy.  In the words of Adrian Hastings

‘When published early in 1964 it was hailed as an authoritative and professional piece of analysis. Unfortunately it was just wrong, based on gravely false assumptions. Writing in 1962 and 1963, Paul had behind him a decade in which the number of ordinations and the general state of things – church attendance, finance, and the rest – had been pretty steadily improving. Perhaps a little unimaginatively he presumed that this would continue almost indefinitely. In point of fact he wrote at the peak of the movement when decline was just about to set in and set in fast.’

Just how wrong Paul was can be shown by his prediction of the likely number of ordinations in 1971, a prediction he though was on the conservative side. He predicted 831 ordinations. The actual figure was 393. Paul thought that the number of ordinations would rise year on year throughout the 1960s. In fact they shrank and the Church of England has been struggling with a shortage of stipendiary clergy ever since.

The Paul report is a salutary reminder that predicting the future is an inexact science. From a Christian perspective what adds to the uncertainty, while also giving us great grounds for hope, is the fact that the Bible and the history of the Church both teach us that from time to time God acts in history to renew the life of his people. Think of the Exodus, think of the return from exile in Babylon. In the history of the Church of England think of the renewal of the Church brought about by the Reformation in the sixteenth and the Evangelical revival in the eighteenth century and the Charismatic renewal movement in the twentieth. These acts of God can radically change the life of God’s people, but precisely because they are the acts of God, and God is, to quote Karl Barth, ‘the God who loves in freedom’ precisely when and how they will happen cannot be predicted with certainty.

However, bearing both these points in mind, the fact remains that churches have to plan for the future and the best way to do this is to think about the future by thinking about what looks likely, or, in Butler’s terms, ‘probable.’  In this paper I shall be looking at what seems probable in terms of the future of the Church of England.

  1. Mission

As most of you know, a minor growth industry in recent years has been the production of mission statements. A mission statement is, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary ‘a formal summary of the aims and values of a company, organisation or individual.’  For example, Google declares that its mission is ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,’ e bay’s mission statement is to ‘provide a global trading platform where practically anyone can trade practically anything’ and the Costa Coffee mission statement is to become ‘the most successful coffee business anywhere in the world as measured by customer preference and return on investment.’

The reason that mission statements have become popular is that they help an organisation, group, or individual, plan for the future by telling them what their overall aim is. Once you know what your aim is, it is much easier to work out how to achieve it in the future. In the case of the Church of England (and the Anglican Communion as a whole) its current mission statement is the Five Marks of Mission which were endorsed by the Anglican Consultative Council in 1990 and by General Synod in 1996. In their latest form the Five Marks of Mission declare that the Church’s calling is:

  • To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom;
  • To teach, baptise and nurture new believers;
  • To respond to human need by loving service;
  • To seek to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation;
  • To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth.

The first two marks are based on the mission commands given by Jesus to his disciples during his earthly ministry and after his resurrection (Luke 9:1-6, 10:1-24, Matthew 28:18-20) and the last three are based on the overall biblical teaching that God’s people should respond to the needs of their neighbours, promote peace and justice and care for God’s creation. If you want a good overall summary of the Bible’s teaching about mission that show how these five points fit together I recommend Chris Wright’s book The Mission of God published by IVP in 2006.

The fact that the Church of England understands its mission in terms of these five elements has a number of general implications for the way it should seek to operate in the future:

a. The Church of England will need to maintain as far as possible its existing parochial and chaplaincy system since these give it a comprehensive network of mission stations covering the whole country that, potentially at least, provides the opportunity to reach everyone with the gospel.

b. It will increasingly need to become what Archbishop Rowan Williams called a ‘mixed economy’ church, that is to say, a church that supplements traditional forms of church life with new ones that will enable culturally relevant forms of outreach to those who have no current connection with the Christian community. This is what the Fresh Expressions initiative is about.

c.It will need to develop ways of responding at a variety of levels to the rejection of Christian belief and morality that is now deeply embedded in our culture. The Church has high calibre intellectual apologists such as Michael Green, John Lennox, Alister McGrath and Bishop Tom Wright. They can counter the arguments of the well-known anti-God polemicists such as Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens and Philip Pullman and the sort of work that they do will need to continue and to be encouraged. What the Church will also need to foster, however, are ways of communicating the case for Christian faith at a more popular level. Courses such as Alpha, Christianity Explored and Emmaus have begun to do good work in this area, but arguably they are still too Middle Class in their approach to reach out to the nation as a whole.

d.It will need to be a church that proclaims what it believes not only in words but also though the quality of life exhibited by its members both as individuals and as a Christian community. This is because, as Graham Tomlin puts it in his book The Provocative Church:

‘Evangelism that proclaims a gospel of truth, yet pays little attention to the kind of community that it creates or the quality of life of the people it shapes, is unlikely to be listened to for very long by those who have imbibed the postmodern suspicion of disembodied truth with their mother’s milk.’

As Tomlin goes on to say, what the Church of England will need to foster are ‘provocative churches’, churches that will ‘provoke people to ask about the beliefs that inspire the life of that community and to take those beliefs seriously.’  If you want to see what a provocative church looks like read St. Luke’s account of the Early Church in Acts 2:37-3:5 or St. Paul’s description in Ephesians 4:17-6:8 of how the Church should exhibit the marks of the new humanity that God has created through the work of Christ.

e.It will need to be a church that practices integral mission in the sense of combining the proclamation of the gospel with care for those in need, work for justice and peace and an active concern for ecological issues. As the 2001 Micah Declaration on Integral Mission puts it:

‘It is not simply that evangelism and social involvement are to be done alongside each other. Rather, in integral mission our proclamation has social consequences as we call people to love and repentance in all areas of life. And our social involvement has evangelistic consequences as we bear witness to the transforming grace of Jesus Christ. If we ignore the world we betray the word of God which sends us out to serve the world. If we ignore the word of God we have nothing to bring to the world. Justice and justification by faith, worship and political action, the spiritual and the material, personal change and structural change belong together. As in the life of Jesus, being, doing and saying are at the heart of our integral task.’

This form of integral mission will also mean being prepared to work with those of all faiths and none on matters of common concern and working on how to do this in a way that does not compromise a distinctive Christian witness.

f. In order to be a church that is provocative and that is able to undertake the demanding task of integral mission, the Church of England will need to be a church that takes Christian formation seriously, a church that produces not only converts, but mature disciples who understand the cost of Christian commitment and who are willing, and have the spiritual resources, to pay it.

g. Finally, it will need to be a church that is willing to undertake informed and sensitive mission amongst those of other faiths. We cannot say that those of other faiths are out of bounds to mission. The gospel is for everyone (‘make disciples of all nations’ Matthew 28:19). However, we do need to be aware of the impact of evangelism on community relations and of the high level of pastoral care required by converts from other faiths for whom conversion and, particularly baptism, may lead to ostracism or positive hostility from their families or communities. The Church of England report Sharing the Gospel of Salvation published in 2010 and available online gives a good introduction to these issues accompanied by examples of good practice.

As well as pointing us to these general issues, the Five Marks of Mission also provide us with the context for considering six specific issues which the Church of England will need to address in the years to come ministry in general, women bishops, establishment, sex, marriage and family life, ecumenical relations, money and prayer.

  1. Ministry in general

In order to carry out its mission effectively the Church of England will require ministers, that is to say, those who have been called by God and commissioned by the Church to undertake mission themselves and to help the whole Church to do the same through teaching, encouragement and co-ordination. What will change in future is not the need for ministers, but the pattern of ministry.  The shortage of stipendiary clergy caused by the retirement of those ordained in the 1960s and the high cost of stipendiary ministry (some £48-50,000 a year) means that the proportion of stipendiary clergy to self-supporting clergy and various forms of lay ministers will probably continue to fall (see ‘Stipendiary clergy projections 2015-35’ on the Church of England website) . This means that in many, if not all, areas of the Church of England the future is likely to lie with forms of collaborative ministry involving  teams of clergy and lay ministers working together to provide ministry for a group of parishes. The role of the stipendiary clergy will increasingly become to provide leadership for such teams rather than carry out most of the ministry themselves.

If this is increasingly going to be the future of ministry. then the training resources of the Church, which are still focussed on training people for stipendiary ordained ministry, will need to be re-focussed on providing training for all forms of ministry. What the Church’s training institutions offer and how they are financed will need to be developed accordingly.

A final point in relation to ministry  in general  is that if the Fresh Expressions work is to be carried forward the Church of England will need to be prepared to finance and support increasing numbers of pioneer ministers, both ordained (as at present) and lay, who are equipped with the knowledge and skills to undertake this form of mission..

  1. Women bishops

Following the passing of legislation to permit the consecration of women as bishops in November 2014 there are ten women bishops in the Church of England. There are two women diocesans, Rachel Treweek, Bishop of Gloucester and Christine Hardman, Bishop of Newcastle, and eight female suffragans, Libby Lane, Bishop of Stockport, Alison While, Bishop of Hull, Sarah Mullally, Bishop of Credition, Ruth Worsley, Bishop of Taunton, Anne Hollinghurst, Bishop of Aston, Karen Gorham, Bishop of Sherborn, Jan McFarlane, Bishop of Repton and Joe Bailey Wells, Bishop of Dorking. Women now make up 10% of the overall College of Bishops, still a small minority, but one that is likely to grow in the years ahead.

The appointment of women bishops means that the Church of England is faced with a number of challenges.

Firstly, what should the Church of England’s stated commitment to the ‘mutual flourishing’ of those with differing views on the ordination of women actually mean in practice? As the arguments surrounding the proposal to appoint Philip North as the new Bishop of Sheffield have shown, there is a strong disagreement between those who think that those opposed to the ordination of women should only exercise episcopal ministry in relation to those of the same persuasion and those who think that mutual flourishing means that all forms of ministry (including ministry as a diocesan bishop) should be open to those opposed to the ordination of women as well as to those in favour.

At the heart of this dispute is the fundamental theological issue (which the debates about the ordination of women bishops skated over) about how it is possible ecclesiologically for the Church of England to be one church when there are within it bishops and clergy who do not recognise the theological and sacramental validity of one another’s orders. The fact that this key issue was left open in the debates that took place between 2004 and 2014 and that we are now in serious trouble as a result, is an important warning against letting the supposed needs of mission override the necessity of actually achieving proper theological agreement about divisive issues. What will now have to happen is remedial work to establish agreement as to what ‘mutual flourishing’ does actually mean, work that will be made more difficult because of the strong feeling generated on both sides by the controversy about North’s proposed appointment and the would not be necessary if proper agreement had been reached in the first place.

Secondly, is it within the range of legitimate theological diversity in the Church of England to ground opposition to the ordination of women of the belief that as there is both equality of being and subordination of function between the Father and Son within the Holy Trinity so also women should be functionally subordinate to men in the life of the Church even though they are equal in terms of the dignity of their common humanity and their participation in the saving work of Christ?  This view has been criticised as heretical on the grounds that it denies the full divinity of God the Son, but as Mike Ovey shows in detail in his Latimer monograph Your will be done this criticism is misplaced. As he explains, regardless of your views on the ordination of women, a belief in the eternal functional subordination of the Son is what makes best sense of the biblical witness and is line with the historic teaching of the Christian Church. The Church therefore needs to proclaim this belief as an integral part of its mission preaching and its instruction of new disciples and on this basis to challenge one of the basic temptations of fallen humanity, which is to prefer pride to humility and self-assertion to godly obedience (see Philippians 2).

Thirdly, there remains a problem about the recruitment of women, and particularly Evangelical women, to full time stipendiary ministry. In recent years there has been a stable figure of roughly 38% of those being ordained being women. However, women are being ordained disproportionately as SSM clergy with the 2015 figures (the latest available) telling us that 27% of those ordained to stipendiary ministry were women compared to 51% of those ordained to self-supporting ministry.

Furthermore, while there are no official statistics available that break down ordinations by churchmanship, anecdotal evidence suggests that most women who are ordained are liberal Catholic or open/liberal Evangelical. It appears that we are ordaining relatively few orthodox Evangelical women and this will mean that as more women are appointed to senior positions in the years to come the Church’s senior leadership will move in a more liberal direction. The fact that 78% of the female members of the General Synod House of Clergy voted not to take note of the House of Bishops report last month is a bell weather of this, as are the known views of those women appointee as bishops, deans and archdeacons. This is an issue that Evangelicals need to take seriously because if the Church’s leadership does move in a more liberal direction this will undermine the likelihood of the Church continuing to proclaim biblical truth and biblical standards for Christian discipleship as it engages in its mission to the world.

  1. Establishment

The establishment of the Church of England is a short hand term for the position of the Church of England in English society ‘as by law established.’ This position involves a whole series of rights and responsibilities which I set out in detail in chapter five of my book A Guide to the Church of England. The key thing about establishment, however, and the reason why secularists get so cross about it, is because it gives the Church of England a guaranteed place at the heart of public life by, for example, ensuring that twenty six senior bishops have seats in the House of Lords and by giving the Archbishop of Canterbury the right to crown the monarch.

Pressure is likely to continue to grow to curtail or abolish the guaranteed public role of the Church of England in order, it will be argued to reflect a country that is more secular and more religiously plural and what the Church of England will have to decide is whether it wants to fight to resist this pressure.

Personally, I hope that it does decide to fight, not for its own sake, but because its current position gives the Christian faith visibility and influence in public life that it would not otherwise have and thus provides important opportunities for mission. I also think it is vital, however, that the Church of England uses its established role wisely and, specifically, that it uses the opportunities that it has to make its voice heard to underline three things that the nation needs to hear. Firstly, that the supreme authority which needs to be obeyed is not what public opinion wants at any given time, but the voice of God speaking through the biblical witness. Secondly, that the responsibility of the government for the welfare of the Queen’s subjects should mean a concern for their spiritual welfare and hence support for the Church and its work. Thirdly, that the material resources that we have should be used as tools of love in a way that enables all people and not just some to flourish in the way that God intends and that is compatible with caring for the well-being of the non-human creation.

     6. Sex, Marriage and family life

The issues of sex, marriage and family life are ones on which the Church of England needs to both get its own house in order and make its voice heard in wider society.

For a complex variety of reasons which are sketched out in Part 1 of Glyn Harrison’s excellent book A better story – God, sex and human flourishing (IVP 2016) our society has now increasingly moved to a radically new position on the issues of sex, marriage and family life. We live in a society in which the political system, the education system and the media are alike now telling us that whether we are male, female or some other form of sexual identity (gender queer, pan gender, two spirit etc.) is determined not by our biology but by our subjective self-perception, that sex and marriage between two people of the same sex is ok as are all forms of consensual sex outside marriage, that marriage can be ended simply because one or both spouses decide to walk away from their marriage vows, and that it is fine for children to be conceived out of wedlock and to be brought up by a single parent or two parents of the same sex.

In the face of this change in society the Church of England will come under increasing external and internal pressure to bow to the LGBTI agenda and officially accept the legitimacy of same-sex sexual relationships and same-sex marriage and to accept that people’s God given sexual identity is whatever they declare it to be. To change in this way will be said to be a missional imperative for a church that aspires to be the Church for the nation rather than a narrow fundamentalist sect.

For two reasons, however, it would not be right for the Church of England to bow to this pressure:

Firstly, the unequivocal teaching of the Bible and of the Church Catholic (what has been believed ‘always, everywhere and by everyone’ as St. Vincent of Lerins put it) is that a person’s sex is determined by the nature of their physical embodiment, and that sex, marriage and the procreation and nurture of children are meant to belong together. Furthermore, sexual identity and activity are not minor issues because they are created by God to be primary witnesses in our very created natures to the relational life of the Triune God himself and to his passionate, fruitful and passionate love for us that will be consummated in the marriage between God and his people that will take place in the world to come (Revelation 19:6-9, 21:2, 9). It is because of this that sexual sin is so serious that it will exclude someone from God’ kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Secondly, the empirical evidence charted by Harrison and others makes it clear that the sexual revolution has not contributed to human emotional or physical well-being, but has in fact done great harm to those who are the most vulnerable in society; the poor, sexual minorities, women and children. It is they who have paid the price of sexual freedom.

What the Church of England needs to do instead is to be boldly counter-cultural in declaring that people ought to live God’s way and explaining why this is the case. In order for this declaration to be plausible the Church of England will need to ‘walk the walk’ as well as ‘talk the talk’ and this means that as part of its general work in Christian formation it will need to foster truthful sexual identity, greater sexual discipline, stronger marriages and lower rates of divorce among its own members while at the same time showing Christ’s love and compassion to those who fall short in their sexual conduct and providing informed and effective pastoral support to those who struggle with their sexuality. It is getting this balance right that will be one of the Church of England’s greatest pastoral challenges in the years ahead.

There will be those who say that last month’s Synod vote shows that the Church of England has already sold the pass. This is not in fact true. The Synod vote has not changed the Church of England’s stated position on marriage and sexuality which remains orthodox. For this to change would involve a complex process involving a 2/3 majority for change in all three house of General Synod which is unlikely to happen in the near future. The situation is serious, but it is not yet desperate. This being the case, those who are orthodox on sexual ethics need to do two things.

(a) In the words of Bishop Rod Thomas in his recent statement on the Synod vote, they need ‘to stand firm – continuing to teach and do the work of evangelism, continuing to turn up at Synods in order to contend for the gospel, continuing to encourage one another by meeting together, and continuing to support those who run into difficulty.’

(b) They need to think in an informed fashion about what might happen in the future and how they should respond if it does. The new document Guarding the Deposit available on the Church of England Evangelical Council website provides a helpful resource for this kind of informed thinking by explaining why upholding orthodoxy in regard to sexual ethics is a vital part of maintaining the apostolic witness and what the options are for continuing to uphold orthodox faith and practice if the Church of England as whole does move in a revisionist direction.

  1. Ecumenism

 If the Church of England is going to carry out its mission to the nation successfully it has got to undertake this mission together with the other Christian churches. This is because the task of mission to the nation is beyond the resources of any one denomination, but also, and more fundamentally, it is because it is as the churches demonstrate that unity that is God’s gift to them in Christ that the gospel will be made plausible and the world will come to believe (Jn 17:20-21). As St. Paul explains in Ephesians 1:3-3:12, it is the visible unity of the Church, made up from both Jews and Gentiles, that makes manifest both to the world and to the heavenly powers God’s eternal plan to unite all things to Himself in Christ.

In the words of the 1996 Anglican- Methodist report Commitment to Mission and Unity:

‘The Gospel Message ….is compromised by our divisions, and consequently our witness to reconciliation is undermined. The Church is called to offer to the world through its own life the possibility of the unity and peace which God intends for the whole creation. The continuing divisions between our churches give an ambiguous message to a society which is itself divided in many ways.

The challenge for the Church of England is to develop new ways of working ecumenically that avoid the cumbersome structures associated with Local Ecumenical Partnerships and Churches Together groups in the past and that are genuinely focussed on mission and to develop new partnerships with the Black Majority Churches and with the new Evangelical networks such as Vineyard, New Frontiers and the Ground Level Network that are becoming an increasingly important part of the English church scene. In addition, the Church of England needs to be prepared to be more selective in relation to its existing ecumenical relationships by only being prepared to work with those churches (or groups within churches) that remain orthodox over sex and marriage. This would mean looking again, for example, at the Anglican-Methodist Covenant and the Porvoo agreement with the Scandinavian and Baltic Lutheran churches given that both the Methodist Church of Great Britain and the Scandinavian Lutheran churches have moved away from an orthodox position on sexual ethics


 As any PCC treasurer or DBF chairman will tell you, mission does not just happen. It has to be paid for. This means that if the Church of England is to carry out its mission it will need adequate financial resources. It seems likely that in the years ahead these resources are going to continue to be tight, particularly because of the rising costs of training, stipends, pensions and housing.

What this means is either the Church of England will have to cut back what is does, or, and this is the better option, those in the church are going to need to learn from the example of the Black Majority and new Evangelical churches and begin to give really generously and sacrificially in response to the fact that we have an abundantly generous God who sacrificed everything for us (see 2 Corinthians 8-9 for St, Paul’s teaching on this point). It is worth noting that if all those who attend church were to give just £1 a week extra to support the Church’s work this would go a long way to addressing the financial difficulties it is currently facing.

It is important to note, however, that if the Church of England does receive new resources in this way then it has to be generous in giving them away. If we want to be a provocative church we have to learn to give generously and sacrificially to the world around us without looking for any immediate return. This principle will become particularly important as the effect of economic downturn and the austerity agenda continue to bite and we continue to be faced with the challenge of ministering to increasing number of people in serious need.

  1. Prayer

Finally, if we want the work of God in the Church of England to go forward we need to translate that aspiration not only into work, but also into prayer (such as the period of prayer leading up to Pentecost called for by the Archbishops as part of the ‘Thy Kingdom Come’ initiative). As I said towards the beginning of this paper, God is not a predictable God. He is the ‘God who loves in freedom.’ However, he is also the God who has promised to hear us when we seek his face in prayer. In the words of  God to King Solomon following the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem:

‘…if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.’ (2 Chronicles 7:14)

The path to the future needs to begin on our knees.