There’s a lot to take in. Noticing a huge silence on the part of various bishops on social media in reaction to the papal pronouncement, Catholic blogger Amy Welborn said it for all the laity out there:

Whassup?

Judging by their silence on Twitter/X feeds, I’m guessing the papal pronouncement came as a surprise to the bishops, too. Were I one of these men in red hats, I’d be furious. They’re made to look like fools. The laity are wondering: Is this a change in doctrine or not?

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops put out a statement saying that no, it actually was not, because same-sex unions were not considered marriage but that “anyone can ask for a blessing when they are seeking God’s assistance, mercy and grace.” What does this mean? Is this something like bringing up a pet for a blessing during an annual St. Francis Day service?

Most others saw it as a major shift in doctrine, including the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit and LGBTQ+ advocate who is editor-at-large for America magazine and someone whose ministry has been openly praised by Pope Francis.

Read it all.

Reaction to the note from LGBTQ Catholics and advocates touted the declaration as a major step forward. Commentary from some theologians, meanwhile, cautioned that it’s misleading to frame the declaration as a kind of monumental shift.https://t.co/CEtthGF4pa

— Crux (@Crux) December 19, 2023

The House of Bishops’ decision to commend the prayers of blessing for same-sex couples was made despite a last-minute plea from leaders in the HTB network. Inclusive groups are urging churches to use the prayers this Sunday.

A group calling itself “the Alliance”, which comprises the current and former vicars of Holy Trinity, Brompton (HTB), the Revd Archie Coates and the Revd Nicky Gumbel, along with 23 other figures in the C of E, wrote to the Bishops on Monday, the day before the meeting at which agreement was reached to commend the prayers…

The letter says: “It is not too late to delay the commending of the Prayers of Love and Faith until the complete package of the Prayers, the full Pastoral Guidance and the Pastoral Reassurance are all presented to Synod.”

The Bishops are also urged to provide “formal legal structural provision” for those who object to the introduction of the prayers. Such a settlement “will enable those who feel compelled to pursue changes to doctrine and practice to be able to minister freely without their actions causing growing schism in the Church of England”, the group writes.

Read it all (registration or subscription).

The House of Bishops’ decision to commend the prayers of blessing for same-sex couples was made despite a last-minute plea from leaders in the HTB network. Inclusive groups are urging churches to use the prayers this Sunday. https://t.co/MMwrokW6cW

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) December 14, 2023

Blessings for same-sex couples can take place within existing church services from this Sunday, after the House of Bishops formally commended the Prayers of Love and Faith at a meeting on Tuesday.

A statement on Tuesday afternoon revealed that the Bishops had voted 24-11, with three recorded abstentions, in favour of commending the collection of prayers, which were first published in draft form in January….

Two marathon debates in the General Synod, in February and November, ended with votes approving the Bishops’ plan to commend the blessings, despite threats of legal action if they were to go ahead….

The blessings have only being sanctioned for use within regular services, and not as a stand-alone service. In the Synod in November, an amendment calling on the Bishops to consider a trial period for stand-alone services was carried, albeit narrowly….

Read it all.

Blessings for same-sex couples can take place within existing church services from this Sunday, after the House of Bishops formally commended the Prayers of Love and Faith at a meeting on Tuesday. https://t.co/4MuuNMnPpc

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) December 12, 2023

A “complex matrix of reasons” led to the disbanding of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), says a report published on Monday.

Its author, Sarah Wilkinson, a barrister, identifies the Archbishops’ Council as responsible for “structural” issues with the way in which the ISB was set up and administered, which led to a situation in which the positions of the board members and Archbishops’ Council “were not clearly defined”.

Ms Wilkinson suggests that the termination of the contracts of the ISB members was made “almost inevitable” owing to their “breakdown in relationships” after Meg Munn was appointed as acting chair in March….

The two other board members — Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves — expressed concern at not being consulted on Ms Munn’s appointment, and survivors and survivor-advocates suggested that her position as the independent chair of the National Safeguarding Panel, another body scrutinising C of E safeguarding practices, amounted to a conflict of interest.

Read it all.

A "complex matrix of reasons” led to the disbanding of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), says a report published on Monday.https://t.co/1owXjj9XY5

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) December 11, 2023

The problem is that, as with the former Prime Minister’s claim, nobody really believes this is the case. How many people really believe that:

• what will be commended in the PLF Suite of Resource—public prayers for God’s blessing on two people of the same sex many of whom will be in a sexual relationship and/or a civil same-sex marriage—has always been lawful in the Church of England and could have been commended by the bishops and used by clergy at any point in the past? 
• the use of such prayers does not represent a major change from the historic and current situation? 
• while the doctrine of marriage remains unchanged, the proposed use of the PLF is neither contrary to doctrine nor indicative of a departure from in doctrine in any essential matter? 
• all these claims have been shown by the House of Bishops to be theologically and legally coherent and convincing?

Charlie Bell, a supporter of getting PLF done but also a severe critic of the latest proposals, recently wrote “what the bishops have done may be legal, but it is not honest”. This echoes the language of Canon C1 and the oath of canonical obedience. The way in which the bishops are proceeding—the “nothing has changed” argument and the refusal to publish the written legal advice they have received—is very difficult to view as honest and to trust. Given the law has not formally been changed, for many the introduction of PLF means that the doctrine to which the law refers has changed in practice. If, as it is being claimed, doctrine has not changed, then what is being proposed seems to many to be not only “not honest” but also, as shown by past legal advice, probably “not legal”. 

In short, unless we sincerely believe and are convinced that “nothing has changed”, then we have to say that it appears the bishops are acting in their commendation, and thereby encouraging clergy to act in their services, in ways which are unlawful. In addition, those liturgical actions are now—because of the bishops’ decisions, which do not alter the legality of what they commend and so in one sense could be described as simply symbolic or “virtue signalling”—going to attract much more attention when they take place then they have done in the past. This means clergy who accept at face value and act on the basis of the bishops’ commendation are probably more likely to face legal challenge than they were in the past.

In the light of this, it even more unacceptable that the bishops are now so reticent to set out clearly for parish clergy, and those who advise them such as archdeacons, both

1. the changing written legal advice which they have received throughout this process, particularly for their 9^th October meeting, and
2. a clear explanation as to how what they are now proposing in PLF is, and indeed always has been, legal and how this judgment relates to the content of past legal advice which they have published that would suggest otherwise.

Read it all.

It has repeatedly been stated that the CofE's doctrine of marriage has not changed. Can the bishops commend the Prayers of Love and Faith with any credibility without sharing the legal and theological basis on which they are doing so? @theologyethics1 https://t.co/3c7RlIvjb9

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) November 28, 2023

The amended motion that was eventually passed on Wednesday after a long and often painful debate as different conscientiously held views were explained and exchanged noted the progress made since the February Synod which asked the House of Bishops to find ways of commending the Prayers of Love and Faith alongside a number of other commitments, not least a heartfelt declaration of repentance for the prejudice and exclusion many LGBTQIA+ people had experienced and sadly sometimes continue to experience in the church. Nothing has yet changed or been introduced, but ways forward and a path to follow is being mapped out. That’s really what this Synod was about.

In particular, what will happen next is that the prayers themselves will be commended for use, either privately and pastorally with same-sex couples, or as part of an existing or regular service in church, but standalone services, i.e. that bit of LLF which has received the most publicity, and probably where the greatest disagreement lies, will be subject to a process of authorisation under Canon B2, which would mean that in order to receive final authorisation, there would need to be a two thirds majority in favour in each of the three synodical houses – bishops, clergy, laity.

Leading up to that vote, there will probably be a period of experimentation under Canon B5A. This is the canon allows individual parishes that want to, that opt in, to apply to be able to use material on an experimental basis for a fixed period, at the end of which, Synod considers whether to extend the authorization under B2. That’s’ the vote requiring the two thirds majorities. Doing it this way will be useful way both gauging the feeling of the Church, but also give time to properly consider exactly what sort of pastoral reassurance and provision will be necessary to honour those who in good conscience won’t be able to support these developments. Again, I want you to know that I am very committed to ensuring this happens well in the Diocese of York, but also for the whole Church of England, as are my colleagues.

The pastoral guidance concerning what this means for ordinands and clergy, particularly over whether they could be permitted to enter into same-sex marriages themselves is still a work in progress and wasn’t really discussed at this synod. But it will be forthcoming in the early part of 2024.

Read it all.

Jesus calls peacemakers ‘children of God’, a vital message for our church as well as for our world.

Read my @DioceseofYork synod address ⬇️ https://t.co/xs4hygpAn8

— Archbishop of York (@CottrellStephen) November 18, 2023

For many in the Church of England a line was crossed this week that we prayed and hoped would not happen.

On Wednesday afternoon, the General Synod expressed its support by a tiny majority of just a few votes for the continued implementation of the House of Bishops proposals to change the position and practice of the Church of England with regards to sexual ethics and marriage.

In practice we now expect the bishops to commend prayers of blessing for same sex couples by mid-December (and provide dedicated services soon after), to prepare guidance which will make it possible for clergy to marry their same sex partners, and that future ordinands will not to be asked to indicate whether their lifestyle and personal relationships are in keeping with the doctrine of the Church of England.

We believe these proposals are being pursued without adequate provision and protection for those holding to the biblical, historic and global majority Anglican view on marriage and sexual intimacy. This underlines the failure of leadership by the archbishops and divided House and College of Bishops….

Read it all.

Responding to the 15 November 2023 General Synod decision: looking forward – The Church of England Evangelical Council https://t.co/uCRNEJTIW2

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) November 18, 2023

From there:

We are saddened to know that the General Synod of the Church of England has passed a resolution to bless same sex unions despite almost 50% of the Synod opposing the bishops’ proposal. This disastrous decision creates the same serious consequences of differentiation and division as in other provinces and further fractures our beloved Anglican Communion.

On behalf of the Primates of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), I once again affirm the GSFA Ash Wednesday Statement which we made on Feb 20^th this year (2023). We wholeheartedly support the faithful bishops, clergy and laity within the Church of England and assure them of our continuing prayers and pastoral commitment as a global body.

“……. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.” Revelation 2:10

Congratulations to Archbishop Justin Badi Arama who was enthroned as Archbishop of South Sudan this weekend!

We pray that God will use him to uphold the authority of scripture and the true gospel of Jesus Christ in South Sudan and beyond. pic.twitter.com/hxEWNPx93O

— GAFCON (@gafconference) April 25, 2018

Stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples are to go ahead in trial form, after an amendment was made — by a narrow vote — to the main motion being debated by the General Synod.

The final motion was carried on Wednesday afternoon in all three Houses: Bishops 23-10, Clergy 100-93, and Laity 104-100.

The motion stated that the Synod “recognise the progress made by the House of Bishops towards implementing the motion on Living in Love and Faith (LLF) in February 2023 . . . and encourage the House to continue its work of implementation”.

The margins in the final vote were tighter than they had been in February’s vote on the original proposals…, in the House of Bishops as in the others: nine months ago, only four bishops voted against.

Read it all.

Stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples are to go ahead in trial form, after an amendment was made — by a narrow vote — to the main motion being debated by the General Synod.https://t.co/q3vLOH8NmF

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) November 15, 2023

10.6 Faced with these problems there would appear to be broadly three (not necessarily mutually exclusive) pathways forward that would have some degree of theological integrity and which might enable the Church of England to proceed in a way that minimises conflict and division and maintains as high a degree of communion as possible in the light of where we now are:

Pausing in order to refine and develop further the theological arguments set out here in Annex H and then seeking a consensus for them in their final articulation as an adequate theological rationale for a form of PLF consistent with them and for new pastoral guidance and pastoral reassurance including any “formal structural pastoral provision in this time of uncertainty” (Introduction, para 18, p.3);
Recognising that for “a time of uncertainty” we have well-established processes in relation to liturgical development and so using Canon B2 (and the need for two-thirds support for any change in all 3 Houses of General Synod at the end of the process) for all of PLF;
Acknowledging that our deeper problem is that the Church has within it two significantly sized groupings divided over whether the existing doctrine is right and should shape our pastoral and liturgical life or is wrong and needs to be replaced with an alternative theology that should then shape our pastoral and liturgical life. Each of these has a clear and internally consistent theological rationale. What is therefore likely needed is not an unsatisfactory and unstable mix of supposed doctrinal continuity but with significant practical changes based on a “new insight into doctrine”. Instead, we need to seek some form of new structural settlement which would give to each of these contrasting and competing theologies their own secure, legally defined and episcopally-led ecclesial space with theological integrity and as high a degree of communion as possible between them within the Church of England.

Read it all.

As General Synod gathers, some thoughts on the theological rationale being offered for PLF with thanks again to @Psephizo for posting. https://t.co/R3RmHgE3pU

— Andrew Goddard (@goddardaj) November 13, 2023

A group of 44 bishops made a public statement on Wednesday afternoon expressing their hope that pastoral guidance allowing priests to be in same-sex marriages would be issued “without delay”.

The statement in favour of reform follows three weeks after 12 bishops publicly dissented from a majority decision by the House of Bishops to commend prayers for same-sex couples….

The new group, 15 diocesan bishops and 29 suffragans, write that they “recognise the complexities of the Pastoral Guidance in relation to ministry, and also the need for a swift end to the current uncertainty for LGBTQIA+ clergy and ordinands.

“We look forward to Guidance being issued without delay that includes the removal of all restrictions on clergy entering same-sex civil marriages, and on bishops’ ordaining and licensing such clergy, as well as granting permissions to officiate.”Read it all (registration or subscription).

Don’t delay guidance allowing priests to be in same-sex marriages, say 44 bishops https://t.co/81hu1fsLkH

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) November 1, 2023

The LLF steering group is chaired by the the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, and the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen.

In response to the question from Sir Ben and Mr Gibson “what physical acts the Church refers to when teaching that sexual intimacy outside of marriage is forbidden”, Mr Selous — who represents the Church Commissioners in Parliament — responded: “The Living in Love and Faith process has always sought to recognise that the expression of sexual intimacy between two people cannot be reduced to a small set of defined actions.”

A further question asked whether a “letter threatening legal action” had been sent to the Bishops between the meetings of the College and the House, to which Mr Selous responded that “several items of correspondence were received over this period from a number of groups with different views, reflecting differing legal and theological opinions, as is widely in the public domain.

“Some offered a legal opinion on the routes of commendation or authorisation for the Prayers of Love and Faith, but I am not aware that any directly threatened the recipients with legal action.”

Read it all.

“The proceedings of these meetings of the House of Bishops and College of Bishops, including details of votes, are confidential," Mr Selous wrote. On Thursday, @ChurchTimes revealed that both had voted that clergy should be able to enter same-sex marriageshttps://t.co/aHHdbYyr9r

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 27, 2023

That story—at least, a sinister reading of it—came to mind as I tried to process last week’s revelation of an amicus brief filed in April by legal counsel for the Southern Baptist Convention, the SBC’s Executive Committee, Lifeway Christian Resources, and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The case is Samantha Killary’s lawsuit against the city government of Louisville, Kentucky, where law enforcement employees allegedly enabled her years-long sexual abuse by her father, also a police officer.

No SBC entity is named in the lawsuit. But because it is similar to other lawsuits being brought against the SBC and the Executive Committee in Kentucky, legal counsel apparently advised these entities to file the amicus brief, encouraging the state Supreme Court to exclude “non-offender third parties” from Kentucky’s recent change in the statute of limitations for abuse claims.

This may protect the SBC from legal liability, but it harms Killary and excuses the institution that hurt her. It is an enormous betrayal to abuse survivors and our allies for accountability within the SBC, and the consequences will—and should—be grave.

Read it all.

After revelations of a scandalous amicus brief, @RevChrisDavis wonders who in the SBC is to blame.

“Here we are—survivors and pastors and therapists and attorneys who thought things were changing for the better—wondering what has just happened.”https://t.co/MO47ss2Oxo

— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) November 1, 2023

The first thing to note is that it is not only difficult, but impossible, to argue that what the bishops are proposing is not a departure from teaching contained in the bishops’ statements concerning Civil Partnerships and same-sex marriages in 2005, 2014 and 2019. In these statements the bishops said that public prayers should not be said for same-sex couples. What is now being proposed is that such prayers should be offered. If the Bishops previous teaching constitutes doctrine for the purposes of clause (g) of the February General Synod motion and for the purposes of the Canons, then what is proposed is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England.

The bishops argument seems to be that this change from previous teaching is not indicative of a change in any ‘essential matter’ because they are not proposing any change to the Church’s doctrine of marriage or its doctrine of sexual ethics which says that sexual intercourse should only take place within marriage (meaning a marriage with two people of the  opposite sex). Where their argument falls down is that if the Church of England’s doctrines of marriage and sexual ethics are viwed alongside the Church’s doctrine concerning the need for repentance and forgiveness for sin, then what they are proposing is necessarily a change of doctrine in an ‘essential matter.’

To understand why this is the case, the point that has to be grasped is that it is an absolutely essential part of Church of England doctrine that in order for people to be rightly related to God in this life and eternally happy with him in the next, they have to acknowledge, repent of, and confess their sins, not only in private but in the context of public worship, so that their sins may be forgiven and no longer constitute a barrier between them and God.

This doctrine is made crystal clear, for example, in the opening paragraphs of the service of Morning Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer:

Read it all.

Martin Davie–Why the Church of England Bishops Cannot Do what they are doing with Prayers for Same Sex couples https://t.co/ZiZJOWkIHC #anglican #theology #analysis #marriage #anthropology #ethics #holyscripture #BCP #anglican #religion #parishministry #UK 'The bishops argument… pic.twitter.com/FUM7TZSatW

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) October 27, 2023

Voting records seen by the Church Times show that a majority of 75 to 22 at the College of Bishops meeting in September supported a plan to approve the services under Canon B5A, which would have enabled their immediate use as an “experimental” service under the authority of the Archbishops.

At a meeting on 9 October, however, the House of Bishops opted to take a different route, and instead move straight to the full synodical process outlined in Canon B2. The College of Bishops had expressly voted against this, by a majority of 68 to 28.

The decision to reverse this in the House was by a small margin: 19 in favour of the plan to proceed straight to B2, and 16 against.

Although this will delay implementation, it means, none the less, that the votes are likely be taken by the present membership of the Synod. When the Synod voted to approve the Prayers of Love and Faith in February, the motion failed to gain a two-thirds majority in either of the Houses of Clergy and Laity

Read it all.

EXCLUSIVE: A large majority of C of E bishops support a move towards allowing priests to enter into same-sex marriage, and the immediate adoption of stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples, the Church Times can report. https://t.co/uo9UwWC0ZI

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 26, 2023

Key decisions, including whether priests are permitted to enter same-sex civil marriages, and how to provide for those who oppose the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples, can be made only after “further work” by the House of Bishops, it was announced on Friday.

At a press conference looking at the papers for the upcoming meeting of the General Synod (13-15 November), the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, insisted that neither item was being put off.

“It’s not deferring, but it’s recognising that in terms of moving both those forward, not just more work but — certainly in terms of the formal structural pastoral reassurance — more listening needs to be done,” she said.

The agenda for the upcoming November meeting of the General Synod is dominated by LLF, with a day-and-a-half of the two-and-a-half-day schedule allotted for discussion.

Read it all.

Same-sex provision needs more work, General Synod will be told https://t.co/Jlx6JII3Eu

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) October 20, 2023

III. RESETTING THE COMMUNION:

9. To press on in resetting theCommunion according to its biblical & historical roots:

a) The Anglican world has changed so dramatically in the last century. In 1900, about 80% of the Communion lived in England. Today, about 75%of Anglicans are estimated to live in Global South countries. The demographics have changed, and sadly in our day the theology of many bishops in the Church of England has also changed towards revisionism. We need new wineskins for a new reality.

b) On the 9th of October 2023, the Church of England House of Bishops signalled their intent to commend prayers of blessing for same sex couples. Despite all that is happening, we as orthodox leaders are very encouraged to see orthodox groupings within the Church of England beginning to collectively stand against this revisionism in their Church. We applaud the 12 bishops in the Church of England who have indicated that they are unable to support the decision by their House of Bishops, and we will uphold them in our prayers. We will stand with orthodox Anglicans in England both now and going forward.

c) We lament with tears all that has happened to the historic ‘mother church’ of the communion, and continue to pray for her restoration. At the same time, orthodox Anglican churches and entities will press on with the work God has given us to do as he renews the fallen creation through the finished work of Jesus Christ our Lord.

d) In relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other instruments of communion, we affirm the Ash Wednesday Statement and the Kigali Statement.

10. As orthodox Primates, we reaffirm our adherence to Lambeth Resolution 1.10 of 1998 in full, both in moral teaching and pastoral care. We recognise this resolution as the official teaching of the Anglican Communion on marriage and sexuality and urge that renewed steps be taken to encourage all provinces to abide by this doctrine in the faith, order, and practice.

Read it all.

Grateful for this statement from #GFSA & @gafconference Primates. It is, I think, realistic about the global position & helpful for England. Good see the involvement of @AnglicanCE and @AMiE_Anglican. The view taken of @JustinWelby is clear & consistent. https://t.co/XlO0zFA2n8

— Dan Leafe (@DanLeafe1) October 22, 2023

In their statement, they call on their colleagues to “reconsider the course we saw mapped out in our meeting”.

Disagreement among the bishops on the issue of same-sex relations is well known, but Monday’s statement — which began “The Church of England’s House of Bishops has agreed . . .” — gave the impression of its being a collective decision of the whole house, given the concession it contained to refer the Prayers to the General Synod.

But Thursday’s statement undermines this apparent collegiality. It continues: “We have participated in good faith in attempts to find consensus but were unable to support the decisions taken on Monday. There was deep disagreement within the House.

“Sharing the profound concerns of many in the Church of England and in the wider Communion, with heavy hearts we find it necessary to dissent publicly from the decisions of the House.”

Read it all.

Twelve bishops have publicly dissented from the decision, announced on Monday by the House of Bishops, to commend blessings for same-sex couples, saying that there is “deep disagreement within the House”

https://t.co/tUE8EZumv6

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 12, 2023

On Monday the House of Bishops reached a decisive point in the journey discerning how to proceed in relation to Living in Love and Faith. We have participated in good faith in attempts to find consensus but were unable to support the decisions taken on Monday. There was deep disagreement within the House. Sharing the profound concerns of many in the Church of England and in the wider Communion, with heavy hearts we find it necessary to dissent publicly from the decisions of the House.

We welcome the fact that the House recognised the need for General Synod to exercise its legitimate responsibilities in relation to liturgy and doctrine under Canon B2. However, the decision to commend the suite of prayers for use in public services bypasses those procedures and does not permit the General Synod to consider the full significance of the prayers. Nor can Synod determine whether the bishops have fulfilled their intention (supported in February) that the final form of the prayers should not be “indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England”. Indeed, legal and theological advice the House has received suggest clearly to us that the decisions of the House may fall short of this commitment.

We are also firmly of the view that we need to adhere to the commitment made to bring the Prayers of Love and Faith, the pastoral guidance and pastoral reassurance (including whatever formal structural provision is necessary) to Synod as a single package, rather than doing so in a piecemeal fashion.

Read it all.

Exclusive: Dissenting bishops speak out on same-sex blessings | Opinion | Premier Christianity https://t.co/JfvozFZBuO

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) October 12, 2023

THE House of Bishops has agreed in principle to commend prayers of blessing for same-sex couples, but the authorisation of new stand-alone services for such blessings is to require a long and uncertain synodical process, it was revealed on Monday evening.

The House of Bishops met on Monday to decide the next steps in the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process, after which a press release was issued by Church House, Westminster.

It was not immediately clear exactly what the announcement meant in practice: the statement said that the House had “agreed in principle” that the Prayers of Love and Faith “should be commended for use”. It is understood that formal commendation will not occur until after the Synod has met in November.

The requirement of a full synodical process for the authorisation of special services in which the prayers are featured does not mean that the prayers themselves cannot be used between their commendation and the authorisation of the stand-alone services: Canon B5 allows for ministers to use their discretion to make alterations to existing services….

Read it all.

The House of Bishops has agreed in principle to commend prayers of blessing for same-sex couples, but authorisation of new stand-alone services for such blessings is to require a long and uncertain synodical process, it was revealed on Monday evening

https://t.co/c5pCxqBfcZ

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 12, 2023

Those who hold to the doctrine of the Church of England, which is to say, the doctrine revealed in Scripture, borne witness to in the historic formularies, and clarified in the canons, do not want the Prayers of Love and Faith.

But surely those who want to see things change should welcome them?

Well, no. Following the bishops’ announcement, a number of revisionists expressed their ongoing frustration. And we should not be surprised at this.

Because the bishops have resolutely refused to provide any theological basis for the Prayers of Love and Faith, as they stand, they are profoundly discriminatory. At February General Synod, I described them as ‘profoundly homophobic’, and I stand by that. For, without any justification given, these prayers imply that homosexual relationships can be celebrated and blessed – just not as much as heterosexual relationships. Gay couples can use the same prayers as at any marriage service – but they can’t be married. They can exchange rings – but not wedding rings.

And we have been told explicitly that the church’s doctrine has not changed. So these prayers can only be offered on the basis that the gay couple can’t be married, that if their relationship is sexual, it is sinful, and that their relationship itself can’t be blessed, though we can ask for God to bless them as individuals.

Who is going to want that?

Read it all.

Who wants the Prayers of Love and Faith anyway?https://t.co/9BqCWehARq

— Church Society (@ChurchSociety) October 10, 2023

Two things stand out at this point. First, Stanley and the pope seem to have missed something very basic: Christian pastoral strategy cannot be developed in isolation from Christian anthropology. Both the question of sexual identity and the politics that surround it are not primarily concerned with sexual behavior. They are actually about what it means to be a human being. For Christians, far more is therefore at stake in this debate than the question of which sexual acts are moral and which are immoral. Once sex becomes recreation and once it is detached from the body’s own sexual script, what it means to be human has fundamentally changed. Sexual complementarity, the telos of marriage, and the analogy between Christ and the church all lose their significance. In a society like ours, therefore, how we think about what it means to be human has undergone a significant change. The anthropology of modern Western society is fundamentally incompatible with a Christian doctrine of man. Failure to see this and then try to argue that codes of sexual morality are negotiable and can be subordinated to pastoral strategies of love and affirmation is to contradict central tenets of the Christian faith.

Second, the emergence within the orthodox church of voices prepared to identify Christian teaching and practice as the problem in this area may seem edgy and prophetic to those involved—“Didn’t the church get slavery wrong?”—but in reality it is as unprophetic as is possible. The church has always had—and needed—prophets because she is a fallible institution made up of fallible people. And yes she has made some terrible mistakes, not least with the matter of slavery. But what is interesting today is the inverted role of the modern prophet. While Isaiah and his colleagues saw their task as calling the people away from the anthropology of the wider world and back to that of the covenant God, today’s prophets seem to see their task as being religious mouthpieces for the priorities of the wider culture, calling the church away from a Christian anthropology and toward that of the world around. It is one thing to have The New York Times, The Atlantic, and MSNBC pointing to the church’s teaching as problematic because it will not recite the liturgy of the world. It is quite another thing to have Christians effectively proffer precisely the same criticism of brothers and sisters in Christ. Prophets warn the church when she is too close to the world. They do not go to the world to tell the pundits that the church is not worldly enough. The pope’s ambiguity and Stanley’s casuistry serve only to embolden the representatives of the pseudo-prophetic industry of Christian leaders who delight in telling the world that, yes, the church really is the problem.

Read it all.

The anthropology of modern Western society is fundamentally incompatible with a Christian doctrine of man.https://t.co/WypVT4N0Rr

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) October 5, 2023

The Church of England’s House of Bishops has agreed in principle that prayers asking for God’s blessing for same-sex couples – known as Prayers of Love and Faith – should be commended for use.

The House, which met in London, also concluded that structures for special services for same-sex couples, based on Prayers of Love and Faith, should go forward to be formally authorised under canon law.

The bishops will bring proposals to General Synod next month which will pave the way for a process that would lead to the authorisation of these special services under Canon B2.

This process, expected to take until 2025, would involve consultation with every diocese and require approval by General Synod.

Read it all.

Bishops agree to commend Prayers of Love and Faith.

Read the full news at https://t.co/dMKCYsTMnV.

— The Church of England (@churchofengland) October 9, 2023

The story came from language in the pope’s July 11 letter, published by the Vatican. In response to a question about whether it is possible for the Church to consider same-sex unions as “possible goods,” the pope wrote several paragraphs which emphasized that there are relationships — presumably same-sex relationships among them — which are “not morally acceptable.”

The pope added that “the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict” its doctrine regarding marriage, or “give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized.”

Still, Pope Francis also allowed for the possibility that some kind of blessing could be conferred on one or more Catholics in “not-marriage” unions.

“Pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. Because when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better.”

In short, the pope seemed to say, when people in an irregular union — perhaps a same-sex union — come to the parish for a blessing, it is worth discerning what they’re really asking for, and whether there is some way the Church can respond to that, even while avoiding the appearance of a nuptial blessing.

Read it all.

Pope Francis answers a dubia — Does inaction speak clearer than words? https://t.co/n1XazybIh0

— Mark Brumley (@mabrumley) October 3, 2023

Pope Francis’s Response to the Second Dubium

a. The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called “marriage.” Other forms of union realize it only in “a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

There is a clear understanding of what marriage is in the Bible and the Christian tradition.  Other forms of union may have some similarity to marriage, but they are not marriage.

b. It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.”

Church teaching is that male/female marriage is a ‘thing’: an actual institution that exists in the lives of men and women, and does not just a distant ideal that we may strive for, or a malleable concept that can be redescribed.

c. For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

In the UK context, this indicates that the Pope might accept civil partnerships as legal and social arrangements between people, but emphasises that they should not be celebrated in such a way as to make it seem as though they are marriage in the proper sense.

d. However, in our relationships with people, we must not lose the pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defence of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.

Charity (love) is of course always of prime importance in any discussion of human relationships.Part of charity is to speak the objective truth (i.e., that marriage is a ‘thing’ as per points a and b) but speaking objective truth cannot be the whole – the sum total – of a charitable response, which also must include an understanding and compassionate approach to people’s individual circumstances.

e. Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage.

Read it all.

Pope Francis’s new doctrine chief has said he believes the new structure of his department is working well, and includes a “democratic system” for handling queries or complaints which prohibits him from making unilateral decisions.https://t.co/TMQg6diL8r

— Crux (@Crux) October 3, 2023

On whether the practice of blessing same-sex unions is in keeping with Catholic revelation and the Church’s magisterium, Francis said “the Church has a very clear concept on marriage: An exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to begetting children.”

“Only this union is called ‘marriage.’ Other forms of union are only realized ‘in a partial and analogous way’, which is why they cannot strictly be called ‘marriage,’” the pope said.

Sacramental marriage “is much more than a mere ‘ideal,’” he said, adding this is why the Church “avoids every type of rite or sacrament that can contradict this conviction and imply that something is recognized as marriage which is not.”

However, Pope Francis stressed the need for compassion in the Church’s pastoral care of homosexual individuals, and signaled an openness to blessing same-sex unions on a case-by-case basis.

“In dealing with people we must not lose pastoral charity, which must pass through all of our decisions and attitudes,” he said, saying “the defense of the objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement.”

Read it all.

Pope offers cautious ‘yes’ on blessing some same-sex unions, ‘no’ on women priests @Pontifex #PopeFrancis #Dubiahttps://t.co/LEVB2NVNPT

— Elise Ann Allen (@eliseannallen) October 2, 2023

We have archbishops openly rejecting the teaching they vowed to uphold. The bishops are showing a lack of respect for a clear, recognizable link between liturgy and doctrine, refusing to follow the proper synodical processes for introducing new (particularly controversial) liturgy in the life of the church, sidelining public theological reasoning and the work of FAOC, and possibly seeking to introduce new guidance contrary to existing doctrine without the proper synodical process that respects the principle of bishops not acting on their own but always as bishops in synod. Alongside this they are also effectively tearing the Church of England away from the Anglican Communion and wider church catholic.

These are not minor technical matters. These actions threaten to dissolve part of the glue that holds the church together and enables bishops to act as a focus of unity. The bishops appear to be abandoning precious gifts that have helped preserve, structure, and cultivate our often fragile common life together across our differences. They are disregarding and undermining well-established, tried and tested, theologically and pastorally (not simply legally) founded principles and practices that enable “good disagreement.” It is, however, only by living within their constraints that bishops will nurture trust and embody integrity, especially as we navigate contentious proposed changes in our teaching and practice.

It is a serious matter for the church to err on marriage and sexuality. That, however, is a problem in one specific, albeit vitally important, area. These developments, and how episcopal and archepiscopal power is being used — on the sole basis, it seems, that these means are necessary to reach the desired end goal — are much more serious. They go beyond a single, possibly reversible, error of judgment, to weaken and potentially destroy core features of Anglican identity and essential characteristics of any healthy ecclesial body.

Read it all.

Grateful to the Covenant website at @Livng_Church for publishing my latest summary of the CofE processes around LLF and the serious and deeper questions they raise. https://t.co/6dmXAZWjAn

— Andrew Goddard (@goddardaj) October 4, 2023

The process towards a decision on how to introduce prayers of blessing for same-sex couples inched forwards this week when advocacy groups on both sides of the debate were briefed confidentially.

In a sign that the College and House of Bishops might be coming to a common mind about a way forward, both liberal and conservative campaigners were invited to confidential meetings this week with the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) team.

One pro-LGBT campaigner and General Synod member present, Professor Helen King, wrote in her blog afterwards that the conversations had mostly revolved around familiar concerns: “How best to move forwards, what are the implications of various canons that could be used, how are everyone’s consciences to be honoured, what — if any — compromises would be acceptable?”

But Professor King, who had also taken part in the Living With Difference facilitated conversations last month, suggested that the House of Bishops had yet to “make up its collective mind” and, instead, was still trying to take the temperature of the Church and establish what the response would be to various options.

Read it all.

The process towards a decision on how to introduce prayers of blessing for same-sex couples inched forwards this week when advocacy groups on both sides of the debate were briefed confidentially https://t.co/Q4Pz6NxQKI

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 3, 2023

Ten survivors of church-based abuse have written to the Archbishops’ Council criticising their treatment after the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) was disbanded.

On Sunday evening, a letter was sent to the council by ten of the 12 people who had been awaiting a review of their cases by the ISB when it was disbanded without warning (News, 21 June). They write: “In the period since you closed the ISB we have been left in uncertainty and distress.”

The group criticise the announcement on 14 September that Kevin Crompton had been appointed as an “interim commissioner of independent reviews”….They say that the council’s handling of the situation has caused “harm” to members of the group.

“We have no forum through which to raise these concerns. Collectively, we believe that the harm these decisions have caused needs to be independently assessed and we have asked an expert clinical psychologist to complete this work as a matter of urgency.”

Read it all.

Ten survivors of church-based abuse wrote to the Archbishops’ Council on Sunday evening, criticising their treatment since the Council disbanded the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB).https://t.co/Tj6StIHVG3

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) September 25, 2023

Worshippers at one of the churches united with Holy Trinity, Brompton (HTB), have expressed “extreme disquiet” to the Vicar, the Revd Archie Coates, about his stance on blessings for same-sex couples.

At the start of July, Mr Coates was among 27 signatories to a letter, shown to the Church Times, which argued that it was “unlawful, unconstitutional, and illegitimate” for the Bishops to commend the Prayers of Love and Faith. The letter said that they should instead be subject to a process of formal synodical authorisation (News, 7 July).

The signatories included three other prominent figures in the HTB network of churches, including Mr Coates’s predecessor, the Revd Nicky Gumbel. A footnote stated that individuals were “signing in their personal capacities, recognising they cannot claim to speak for everyone that they lead”.

Notwithstanding this caveat, their contribution marked the first public statement on the prayers by members of HTB’s leadership. The Prayers of Love and Faith work was approved in outline by the General Synod in February (Synod, 17 February) and the business is due to return to the Synod in November (News, 22 June).

Read it all.

“As a group of worshippers within the parish we must strongly disassociate ourselves from this letter and we would like you to know that it is causing us extreme disquiet.” https://t.co/eeJK1QqF4J

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) July 30, 2023