Wednesday, October 22, 2025

Part I

This is Just Delayed Surrender: The Church of England Will Require Two-Thirds Majorities in the Synod to Approve So-Called Same-Sex Marriage

The headlines are always coming at us. Sometimes the headlines are less obviously theological. Today, we’re going to look at some pretty obviously theological headlines. Number one, we’re going to go to Great Britain. The headline in The Telegraph is this, “Bishops ‘Killing’ Plans for Gay Marriage.”

Now, Gabriella Swerling is the reporter in this story and she tells us that the House of Bishops, so the Church of England, has announced that future changes when it comes to church law and worship, that means a change that would offer same-sex ceremonies or same-sex marriage, this has been put off because it would require a two-thirds majority in the three houses of Synod. That’s the General Synod of the Church of England. And as The Telegraph remarks, that is now unlikely to be achieved.

So the big headline news here is that the bishops in the Church of England, in a statement through the House of Bishops, have said that they’re not ready yet to move forward with same-sex marriage. Now it says killing. That’s what phrase is used here. It’s put in quotation marks. But as we shall see, they didn’t really kill the idea of same-sex marriage. They really didn’t kill the idea of same-sex ceremonies in the church. What they did was say, “Kill for now.” And that’s not really killing an issue at all. That’s just delaying.

There’s a big story here, and this has to do with the liberalism in the Church of England as indicative of the surrender of so many mainline Protestant denominations and churches across the landscape. We have already seen that just recently the Church of England announced that a woman, that is the current Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, is going to serve as the Archbishop of Canterbury. That’s the chief clerical position in the Church of England and also the titular primate of the Anglican Communion. The fact that a woman’s going to serve in this role was one thing. It’s a big thing, but it’s also very interesting that this woman is basically for LGBTQ rights in the church as they are styled. 

So this is coming as something of a disappointment to those who were hoping that the announcement of this new Archbishop of Canterbury would lead to what would be styled as progressive changes along these lines, including the authorization of same-sex blessings and same-sex weddings supervised, presided over by Church of England clergy and in Church of England parishes. But now we’re told that is not likely to happen soon.

And this is big news, particularly because so many have been pressing from the LGBTQ side for the surrender, total surrender of the Church of England on this score. But we need to step back and recognize that what we have here is a giant lesson, not so much in how to stand against the tide of moral revolution, but rather how to stand rather weakly against the tide in order to achieve something like a delay rather than a clear statement of Christian orthodoxy. So, let’s look at the report in The Telegraph, and let’s just understand what’s going on here.

We are told that the House of Bishops had made this announcement because two-thirds majorities would be necessary in all three houses of the Synod, and the fact that that’s unlikely to be achieved, there will be further delays. Instead, the Bishops have said that they are going to go after, “Further legal and theological advice before publishing a statement.” They said they would do so as early as this week. In 2023, February of 2023, the General Synod voted to allow priests to, “Bless gay couples.”

But this was not to be a specific service, and this was not to be tantamount to a wedding, and thus, you had the LGBTQ folk saying this is not nearly far enough. And you had evangelicals, the Orthodox believers left in the church, saying this is quite too far. The Telegraph reports, “This could only be done during the course of regular church services with dedicated services for blessings forbidden.” So that’s back in 2023. That same year, but later in that year, the General Synod voted to back what was described as a trial and experiment when it came to special standalone services.

And in other words, that was kind of like gay weddings light, but evangelicals and conservatives in the Church of England rose up and complained. And so bishops are now saying that such special services should not be allowed until and unless Canon law, that is the church’s law, is rewritten. “The House of Bishops said final decisions would be made in December, but for now, formal synodical and legislative processes would need to be completed before they could be permitted.”

All right, so there’s a lot really going on here. There are some statements that are very interesting, such as the statement made by the Most Reverend Stephen Cottrell, who is the Archbishop of York. That’s the second-ranking cleric in the Church of England. He said the Church of England was making the right decision for now. Listen carefully to his words. “As we continue prayerfully to navigate this important work on behalf of the church, we believe these are the right decisions following further legal and theological advice. However, we recognize that, for some, they will be difficult and disappointing. I continue to pray for God’s grace and gentleness for us all as we continue to discern away through these questions.” All right, I just want carefully and honestly to take apart that statement, and that’s because the statement made by the Archbishop of York is, as sometimes has been said, it’s dangerously close to actually saying something. I want you to note the words that he used here. Number one, “As we continue prayerfully,” to do what? “To navigate this important work.” Well, if you’re navigating, you’re headed somewhere.

And in this case, the only safe harbor is biblical orthodoxy. That means the singular definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and weddings that are absolutely consistent with that understanding of marriage are the only ceremonies that would be permitted. If you make a public statement, then you’re going to be navigating, “This important work.” Then you’re navigating away from the only safe harbor, which is biblical Orthodoxy. If you’re moving away from that, guess what? You are moving away from orthodoxy into heterodoxy, and it’s just a question of how fast you get there and how quickly you abandon Christian orthodoxy altogether. 

When he went on to say, “We recognize that for some they will be difficult,” meaning these days ahead, “And disappointing,” he says, “I continue to pray for God’s grace and gentleness for all as we continue,” to do what? “To discern away through these questions.” All right, so once again, if you’re navigating, that says just about everything.

But if you are discerning how to get through this situation away through these questions, then once again you’re not giving a clear biblical answer to the question, what is marriage? And thus, what should be the teaching and policy, and church law of the Church of England or any church that would claim the name of Christian? If you can’t define what Scripture defines so carefully, beginning even in the opening chapters of Genesis, if you can’t get that right, well, it’s just a question of how quickly you will abandon Christian Orthodoxy and how far you’ll arrive at any given point away from biblical orthodoxy.

And thus, you have here The Telegraph going to someone in the church identified as a gay priest who accused the bishops of, “Not being honest” in their update. “My feeling on it is basically that moving to the two-thirds majority is essentially a way of killing it because they know there’s not a two-thirds majority in Synod. It’s always been the language for let’s kill it.” Okay, that’s interesting. Let’s just do the math for a minute. Here, you have a gay activist, an LGBTQ activist who is complaining about the two-thirds requirement to change Canon law.

So this means they can’t get at this point two-thirds. But the fact that he’s complaining about this rule indicates that he does feel that the LGBTQ activist community has a majority of those who would be voting, just not two-thirds. He went on to say, “On the marriage question, they have basically said that they have identified the route it could go by and the unwritten next sentence is, ‘And we’re not going to do anything about it.’ No to services and no to marriage, but they say, ‘We have sorted it out.'”

He said, “This feels very much like a pragmatic decision by the bishops, but I think it’s theologically bankrupt and yet again LGBT people are the acceptable sacrifice in the name of unity.” You can understand that he is very disappointed, and he indicates that disappointment in rather heated language. But you’ll also note that in that statement, he basically believes the church is going his direction, just not fast enough, and he couches it, let’s just note this very carefully, in the language of justice. Is basically unjust to do this. And he also describes standing on a biblical definition of marriage as sacrificing LGBT people, “In the name of unity.” 

Once again, if a church doesn’t have a really clear statement on this and the Bible is just emphatically clear, the Christian tradition in all of its manifestations has been incredibly clear about this for just about two millennia, for 2000 years. If indeed you will not stand in that final, very clear place, you will not say from that position you’ll not be moved, then you can understand the people who say you shouldn’t move are going to be disappointed because you have just implied movement.

And those who are pushing for movement, well, they’re not going to be totally satisfied either until you have full surrender. A parable from the Church of England, coming in a statement not about biblical orthodoxy, but just about a delay in departing from it. But before leaving this, we should remember to pray for our brothers and sisters inside the Church of England, and that that includes resolute evangelicals, totally committed to biblical orthodoxy, who in this case are holding a line in a denomination that really doesn’t want to hold that line. There’s a parable there also. We’ll pray for those brothers and sisters.

Part II

A New Social Justice Storybook Bible? New Storybook Bible Trades Biblical Fidelity for Diversity

Along the same lines, I want to point to a news story. In various forums, it appeared as coverage at Fox News, also at Publishers Weekly, and then again at Religion News Service. And the focus of all of this is, as Fox News reports, “Progressive publishers launch children’s Bible stories with social justice and diversity themes.” Christine Parks is the reporter for Fox News, and she tells this. “A crop of new children’s storybook Bibles aims to reach progressive Christians who are turned off by traditional presentations of Scripture, offering messages focused on diversity, inclusion, and social justice.”

She continues, “Publishers say the projects are meant to reflect the faith values of a changing audience and to fill what they describe as a gap in faith resources for progressive believers.” Now, let’s just note something. I mentioned that on the issue, say, of the Church’s understanding of marriage it has been stable for 2000 years. It’s only in very recent decades that some liberal denominations have moved in the opposite direction, away from Scripture.

Well, one of the things you also have to note is that children’s Bibles have emerged as a part of the modern world, and that is to say, with modern publishing and so many other technologies, you had the development of children’s story Bibles, and there’ve been some very, very good ones that have been released by evangelical publishers. And there’s some old ones that were released by mainline liberal publishers as well. And frankly, most of them weren’t exactly liberal because it’s hard to be liberal with the children’s Bible unless you’re going to say you don’t believe it.

And even for children, that’s not what most of these mainline Protestant denominations were ready quite to do, but they’ve gotten there now. That’s the announcement. So, in keeping with progressive Christianity’s redefinition of the faith, well, now you have to have new children’s story Bibles. One of them is identified as, “The Just Love Story Bible,” a justice-oriented storybook for readers ages four to 10. It was authored by the Reverend Jacqui Lewis and the Reverend Shannon Daley-Harris. We’re told it features 52 Bible stories and illustrations portraying characters in Black, Brown, and tan skin tones.

“Our agenda is to teach young people a theology of love and justice that we don’t have to unlearn.” And let me just note that if you were to see you picture the Gospels, and you picture Jesus with the children. Those children would be darker in skin simply because that would’ve been characteristic of the people to whom Jesus was speaking, and of course, the children to whom Jesus was speaking. But here you have the agenda of all kinds of equality, and that means representation, and that means it’s representation according to certain theories of racial justice.

And let me just say that we understand absolutely clearly that Jesus loves the little children, but we also understand that just in an historical setting, bringing this kind of diversity into the situation is, well, it’s making a statement more about the agenda behind the publisher than it is about the Bible story itself. But honestly, that’s a minor issue compared to what follows. We’re told, “The author said they also hope to prompt children to ask questions and challenge traditional beliefs about God, Jesus, and the biblical narrative.” One of the two co-authors asked the question, “Did that happen?” Speaking of a Bible story. She also described, “How the storybook presents Jesus’s resurrection.” Saying “For me, it matters more that children know that love never dies. So that’s where I landed.” 

One of the two authors also said, “It’s okay to actually tell kids from the get-go some of these stories are about true people and things that really happen and some of them are made-up stories, but they’re in there because they can still teach us true things about God.” And in particular, we are told this, the other of the two authors, was, “Referencing the story of Jonah.” So, in other words, she doesn’t believe it actually happened. She thinks some other stories probably did happen, but that one she thinks didn’t happen. But you can still learn things about God from the kind of story that didn’t happen. The Fox News report then says, “The authors acknowledge that readers who interpret the Bible literally may not be the right audience for their book.” Well, you can just declare that to be an understatement.

We are also told that how the publisher announces this is that it’s an open-minded bible. The author, co-author of the new Bible story liberals Bible storybook for children, said, “There will be a group of sort of literalist or fundamentalist folks for whom this isn’t a welcome resource.” She went on to say, “But it’s been really interesting to see the reception for not just folks who are raised progressive, but those who are raised in a tradition that no longer fit them, who did grow out of a theology and are looking for one they can grow into and grow with alongside their children.”

The story then tells us bluntly that Jesus is portrayed as a feminist, and the co-authors say they do not want children to learn patriarchy from this story Bible. Now, I’ll just point out that that means they got to stay away from the actual Bible. The stories of the Bible would include what can only be described as patriarchal themes. So much so that so many of the men in the Old Testament are described in Scripture as the patriarchs. Kind of hard to take patriarchy out of patriarchs. The Fox News report also mentions another resource released by Hodder Faith. That’s a UK-based Christian publisher.

It’s entitled Come and See: An Invitation to a Radical Encounter with Jesus. We’re told that it’s aimed at readers 11 and up, and it was written, “By Shannon T. L. Kearns, described as the first openly transgender man ordained to the old Catholic priesthood.” That’s a schismatic group from the Roman Catholic Church, but I think those words will just explain themselves. We are also told in this report that Westminster John Knox Press, that’s the mainstream liberal Presbyterian denominational press, is releasing a book also intended for children entitled Growing in God’s Love: A Family Devotional. And Fox says, “The book offers daily readings that bring what the publisher calls substantive progressive lessons in faith for all generations aimed at adults and children ages five to 17.” Listen to this. “Author Jessica Miller Kelley, an editor at Westminster John Knox, said she intentionally avoided using gendered language such as mother or father in the devotionals except when directly quoting Scripture to make the stories more inclusive of gender diversity and different kinds of families.” That was the statement she originally made to Publishers Weekly.

So, notice that now the Bible has to be presented in such a way that you avoid the use of terms, well, essential words like mother and father. And let me just point out that when you’re talking about the Bible and God’s own self-revelation, He names Himself as Father. Jesus tells us to pray “Our Father who is in heaven.” If you’re going to avoid mother and Father except in direct quotations, you’re going to imply that none of it matters. But then again, my guess is that the only audience for this kind of book, the only market, are people who have already decided it really doesn’t matter. And more on that in just a moment. 

Part III

A Storybook Bible That Targets Your Children with a Hermeneutic of Suspicion: New Storybook Bible Seeks to Undermine the Truthfulness of God’s Word to Children

But first, let me go to the other two articles. Cathy Lynn Grossman, longtime religion reporter, is the person who covered the story for Publishers Weekly, and that again is kind of The Wall Street Journal for the publishing industry, and the headline is “Bible Books for Kids Take a Progressive Turn.” And in this case, one of the senior acquisition editors at one of the publishers said, “We noticed a gap in the marketplace for people who are looking for a more open-minded Bible for progressive Christians, one that is focused on love and justice.”

Thus, she commissioned The Just Love Story Bible. I want to just interrupt there and say, if you’re thinking about that, I have to think this market’s really pretty small, but it’s also something that comes up in discussion of sales of Bibles and books related to the Bible, such as story Bibles. The fact is that the vast majority of them are bought by evangelicals or persons who buy them for such things as confirmations or others, including Roman Catholics. Let’s just say they’re not necessarily the kind of people who are looking for a self-declared progressive story Bible for children.

So my guess is that this market is going to be very tiny, but looking at these publishers, I think their market’s probably quite tiny already. Rather making that point, Publishers Weekly declares, “For now, religion publishers driving in the progressive lane are few and far between.” And while more conventional Bible books for kids are forthcoming from evangelical and traditional Christian houses, I mean publishing houses, including from major players like David C. Cook and Zondervan, progressive publishers, “Expect company.”

One of the persons cited in the article said, “Readers will be very excited to find a progressive Bible story book that validates the view that there’s, ‘More than one way of being a Christian.'” The article published at Religion News Service is by Adelle M. Banks, another veteran writer in terms of religion in the United States. The headline on her article is, “New Children’s Bible aims to Capture Diverse Non-Patriarchal Theology of Love and Justice.” 

I want to go down to one statement that was made by one of the two women who produced this. “Some of these stories are about true people and things that really happen, and some of them are made-up stories.” You heard this from the previous report. “But they’re in there because they can still teach us true things about God.” I want you to hear the next statement. “You can tell the story of Jonah and the whale and still let kids at these different developmental levels get into it imaginatively to extract the true lessons about us as God’s people, without feeling like they have to, pardon the pun, buy the swallowed-by-the-whale thing, hook, line and sinker.”

Well, I guess we can say they’re not being subtle. We are also told that one of the co-authors said, “When we talk about what children can do and how they can be activists or how they can be revolutionary lovers, that looks like a rainbow of people.” That’s the kind of language we all use about our children, right.” Well, it is also interesting to note that there are some in here who went so far as to say one of these two authors went so far as to say about Bible stories asking the question, did it happen? And she said, “For me, it matters more that children know that love never dies, so that’s where I landed” speaking about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But then listen to this. The other author said, “There will be a group of sort of literalist or fundamentalist folks for whom this isn’t a welcome resource. But it’s been really interesting to see the reception from not just folks who are raised progressive, but those who are raised in a tradition that no longer fit them, who grow out of a theology and are looking for one they can just grow into and grow alongside with their children.” And at one point, they actually suggest that this is an illustration of what’s called the hermeneutic of suspicion.

One of the co-authors actually said that the possibility of having a hermeneutic of suspicion. And remember this is about children. This is about a storybook from the Bible for children, and now we are being told that for children ages four and above, in one segment, 10 and above for others. The intention is to introduce these children to the hermeneutic of suspicion. What is that? It was developed by the Theorist Paul Ricoeur, and it basically is raising the posture of believing that what you’re reading didn’t happen, or it is encoded oppression, or it’s patriarchy, or it’s homophobia, or something else.

The hermeneutic of suspicion means you read a text suspicious of the text. Isn’t that what you want for your children to read the Bible or hear the Bible and be suspicious of the Bible? There’s something beyond theological liberalism here. There’s something that I just want to say is spiritually and theologically sick. 

It underlines what we often cite, and that is the statement made by J. Gresham Machen, the great defender of orthodoxy early in the 20th century, that when you talk about liberal theology, you’re not talking about, as compared with orthodoxy, two forms or two branches of Christianity. You’re talking about Christianity, which is the Orthodox side, and another religion entirely, which is the liberal side. And thus, when he wrote his book, Christianity and Liberalism, it was about two different religions. And now we see it requiring two different approaches, two children’s story Bibles. One based in what we hope would be our children believing these stories, learning from them, and being transformed by God’s Word. Or on the other hand, those who look at the Bible as patriarchal, homophobic. They want to get over the Bible.

They want children to learn a hermeneutic of suspicion, which, by the way, is just even speaking about childhood, about the last thing I think any sane person would think helpful.

Part IV

The Bible and Child Rearing: To Raise Your Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord is to Raise Your Children in the Word

But from time to time, it’s really good for evangelical Christians, for those who actually believe in the truth claims of Christianity and unashamedly side with the authority and inspiration and perfection of Scripture, it’s very important that we come back and say, “We really do believe the Bible is the Word of God. We really do believe our children need to learn and hear God’s Word.

We want them not only to learn and to hear God’s Word, but to hear and to receive God’s Word, to obey God’s Word. And we do so unabashedly. The last thing we want for ourselves or for our children or anyone else is to look at Scripture with a hermeneutic of suspicion.” But I really wanted us to look at this today, not just to understand what’s at stake in the very idea of a progressive or a liberal children’s story Bible, but I wanted us to understand how it is that we should see our responsibility to share the Bible with our children and with our children’s children.

And it does underline the priority that we raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, surrounded by believing Christians and hearing the Bible, even stories from the Bible as coming from the very Word of God. And that also means throwing this argument right back at one of the co-authors of this liberal study Bible. It really does mean that we, along with our children, take, for example, the story of Jonah, hook, line, and sinker, all of it. Amen.