https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/dont-pre-judge-the-cofes-new-resources-on-sexuality/3167.article

My networks would suggest there is a large – but silent – conservative majority in the Church of England.

An ongoing challenge for progressives is there is not a clear “position” they are agreed on. There are multiple different landing points: same-sex blessing; same-sex marriage; sex outside marriage. We have an advantage of unity, the status quo, and the international Christian community, and two millennia of history. Let’s find ways to make the testimony of scripture compellingly attractive.

Jesus’s words in Matthew 10.16 come to mind: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves..." Shrewd as snakes: Expect a barrage of negative darts from the media about the orthodox position. Note that ridicule is a textbook tactic in spiritual opposition (Nehemiah 2:19), as is making you think you’re outnumbered (2 Kings 6).

Ask the Spirit for words, he is not the Spirit of fear (Romans 8:15): “Do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you”. (Matthew 10:19-20)

One of my favourite quotes from Anthony of Egypt (when threatened by the heresies of his day) is: “We must not worry about knowing what is to come but about carrying out what we have been told to do”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Duff

Jeremy Duff: an Anglican priest who is currently the Principal of St Padarn's Institute, a theological training initiative of the Church in Wales. He is also the author of a well known Greek textbook, “The Elements of New Testament Greek (3rd edition)”.


https://www.bl.uk/lgbtq-histories/articles/a-short-history-of-lgbt-rights-in-the-uk

The Buggery Act of 1533, passed by Parliament during the reign of Henry VIII, is the first time in law that male homosexuality was targeted for persecution in the UK. Completely outlawing sodomy in Britain – and by extension what would become the entire British Empire – convictions were punishable by death. 

It was not until 1861 with the passing of the Offences Against the Person Act, that the death penalty was abolished for acts of sodomy – instead being made punishable by a minimum of 10 years imprisonment.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 however, went a step further once again, making any male homosexual act illegal – whether or not a witness was present – meaning that even acts committed in private could be prosecuted. Often a letter expressing terms of affection between two men was all that was required to bring a prosecution. The legislation was so ambiguously worded that it became known as the ‘Blackmailer's Charter’, and in 1895, Oscar Wilde fell victim.

Meanwhile, a significant rise in arrests and prosecutions of homosexual men were made after World War II. Many were from high rank and held positions within government and national institutions, such as Alan Turing, the cryptographer whose work played a decisive role in the breaking of the Enigma code. This increase in prosecutions called into question the legal system in place for dealing with homosexual acts.

The Report of the Departmental Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution, better known as the Wolfenden Report, was published in 1957, three years after the committee first met in September 1954. It was commissioned in response to evidence that homosexuality could not legitimately be regarded as a disease and aimed to bring about change in the current law by making recommendations to the Government. Central to the report findings was that the state should focus on protecting the public, rather than scrutinising people’s private lives.

It took 10 years for the Government to implement the Wolfenden Report’s recommendations in the Sexual Offences Act 1967. Backed by the Church of England and the House of Lords, the Sexual Offences Act partially legalised same-sex acts in the UK between men over the age of 21 conducted in private.  Scotland and Northern Ireland followed suit over a decade later, in 1980 and 1981 respectively.

https://notchesblog.com/2016/03/31/the-church-of-england-sexual-morality-and-the-complications-of-institutional-decision-making/

 

The submissions of the Church of England Moral Welfare Council (CEMWC) – a body created for the specific purpose of coordinating and extending the Church’s efforts in educational and social work relating to issues of sex, marriage, and the family – anticipated and encouraged the Wolfenden recommendations, arguing “it is not the function of the State and the law to constitute themselves the guardians of private morality… to deal with sin as such belongs to the province of the Church.”

https://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/108/Cman_108_2_Bayes.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2638853

https://www.vqronline.org/essay/fathers-victorians

 

https://www.blackburn.anglican.org/bishop-jill


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemonologie

http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1806lanc.htm

At the Lancaster assizes in August 1806 five men were convicted of buggery; Samuel Stockton, Thomas Rix, John Powell, and Joseph Holland had regularly assembled at the home of Isaac Hitchen, where they engaged in sex and called one another "Brother", and kept assignations at the shop of Holland, a well-off pawnbroker. Most of the men had relations with John Knight, one of the most affluent men in Warrington, and with the confectioner Thomas Taylor, who both turned King's Evidence to save themselves. Hitchen and Rix were sentenced to death but respite, but Stockton, Powell and Holland were hanged on the new drop erected at the back of the castle in Lancaster.

JOSEPH HOLLAND

FOR AN UNNATURAL CRIME.

I N D I C T M E N T

JOSEPH HOLLAND was indicted for that he not having the fear of God before his eyes, nor regarding the order of nature, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, on the 9th day of July, in the forty-second year of the reign of his present Majesty, at Warrington, in the county of Lancaster, in and upon one Thomas Taylor, of Warrington aforesaid, did make an assault, and that he then and there feloniously, wickedly, diabolically and against the order of nature, carnally knew him the said Thomas Taylor, and then did commit that horrid, detestable, and abominable crime called b——y [buggery]. [p.31]

To this Indictment the Prisoner pleaded — NOT GUILTY.


harged by John Knight, but I never perpetrated the crime on any man.

Q   How long ago is it since you suffered any person to commit this infamous crime upon you? — A   About eight or nine years since.

Q   How old are you now? — A   About forty-five.

Q   Then when you first submitted yourself to be contaminated with this abominable crime, you were about thirty years old?

Court Nay that would be fifteen years ago.

Counsel — True, is it not more than eight or nine? — A   It was ten or eleven.

Q   So then at that time you were thirty-five? — A   Yes.

Q   Did you ever make any resistance or complaints when this crime was attempted to be committed upon you? — A   I have resisted.

Q   Did you ever make any complaints to any person on these occasions? — A   I never did except to the person that had committed it.

Q   When you have complained to the persons [p.34] themselves was it before or after? — A   Both before and after.

Q   Did you ever receive money from these persons at any time? — A   Never.

Q   Did you ever threaten to disclose if they did not give you money? — A   No.

Q   Did you receive any money from the prisoner? — A   I never did.

Q   So then, on these occasions you suffered these persons voluntarily to perpetrate this horrid crime upon you, or in short to do as they would. — A   I have resisted.

Q   Had you know the prisoner any time, or had you had any particular acquaintance with him when he asked you to go with him to his house? — A   I had not.

Q   Where had you seenm the prsoner before this time? — A   I had seen him at Isaac Hitchin's, about three weeks before.

Q   Had you ever seen him act contrary to decency or good morals, before the night when you say you went home with him? — A   I never did.

 

S E N T E N C E:

ON MONDAY, AUGUST THE 25th, 1806,

Joseph Holland, Thomas Rix, John Powell, along with Isaac Hitchen and Samuel Stockton who had also been convicted by John Knight were brought into court to receive sentence, [p.66] and after having been asked what they had to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon them according to law – the court proceeded to pass sentence of death on Holland, in nearly the following terms:

John Holland, you stand convicted by a jury of your country of a crime which, according to the very energetic terms of the law, is a crime not to be named amongst Christians. I will not, therefore, offend the ears of any of those who may be before me, on this solemn occasion, by making any observations on the enormity of the offence of which you have been found guilty: — it is a crime of that nature and magnitude, that it is the duty the legislature owe to that society over which it presides, to mark it with the severest and most inevitable punishment.

I warn you, therefore, not to indulge any expectation that pardon will be extended toward you, but rather to make the best use of that short time which you will be allowed, in order to prepare yourself for that state into which you must shortly enter. — It now only remains with me to fulfil the painful task of pronouncing the awful sentence of the law, which is:

"That you Joseph Holland be taken from hence to the place of execution, there to be hanged by the neck until you are dead, and may God Almighty have mercy on your soul!!" [p.67]

Mr. Holland appeared in the highest degree alive to his awful situation, and exclaimed, after the sentence was pronounced, upon his knees, "Amen, the Lord have mercy!"

The same sentence was passed on the rest. [p.68]