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

Referring to Dr Croft’s amendment, …[Dr Jill Duff] said that the “one-vote knife-edge” would make it difficult to implement anything. What was needed was a “better way that will help us keep united, help us flourish”.

She referred to her positive experience in Blackburn, working with a diocesan bishop, the Rt Revd Philip North, who opposed the ordination of women, as an example of how it was possible for the Church to stay together despite deep differences (News, 12 January).

A “consensus” was needed akin to the one that had enabled the legislation on women bishops to be carried by two-thirds majorities in the Synod. “We did that quite carefully, and it has enabled us to be respected across the whole spectrum,” she said.

In the Synod in July, however, the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin, made a speech in which she implored the Church not to go down the same route: it “ain’t working — and we are paying the price”, she said.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury revealed that he had abstained from the vote, because “my pastoral responsibility extends to everyone in the Church of England and global Anglican Communion". But he “welcomed” its outcome. https://t.co/QF6mo6KJHM

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) November 17, 2023

This week marks a tragic moment in the history of the Church of England. On Wednesday, November 15, its General Synod approved a proposal to encourage its bishops to continue their work in creating and implementing liturgical prayers of blessing for same-sex unions. The Synod additionally voted to approve an amendment that will allow clergy to go ahead and conduct standalone services of blessing on a trial basis. This means that, beginning next month, Anglican clergy in Church of England churches will be able to do what the prophet Balaam could not and would not do by going against the Word of God and blessing that which God has condemned (Num 24:12-14).

Holy Scripture is clear and unequivocal in its affirmation that the only proper context for sexual intimacy is the relationship of a man and woman who have been joined together in marriage. All forms of sexual intimacy outside of this context are condemned as immorality and are behaviors from which the people of God are regularly called to repent. In I Corinthians 6:9-10, the apostle Paul tells us “not to be deceived” on the seriousness of such immorality and warns us that those who fail to repent of it will not inherit the kingdom of God. And one of the behaviors he specifically names is that of homosexual activity. Elsewhere the New Testament specifically warns against false teachers who promote sexual immorality within the church (2 Peter 2:1-3, Jude 3-4, Rev. 2:19-24) and instructs us not to listen to or heed their words.

This week, the Church of England has made it clear that they disagree with Holy Scripture. They have decided that they can bless that from which the Bible calls us to repent. What is more, although these motions were passed by very narrow votes among the clergy and laity, the bishops gave their support and approval by a very clear majority. This is a tragedy for Anglicans, for not only has the Church of England done what its own Thirty-Nine Articles forbid by approving ceremonies that are “contrary to God’s Word written” (Articles XX, XXXIV), but a majority of its bishops have broken the vows which they swore at their consecration, to “banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word” (BCP Ordinal).

Read it all.

St. Patrick’s Day – preaching in Down Cathedral, N. Ireland on the theme of reconciliation. Grateful for the opportunity! pic.twitter.com/Vxs4XAlPtd

— Laurent Mbanda (@MbandaLaurent) March 17, 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

From there:

“CEEC is grieved and saddened that the General Synod passed a motion earlier this afternoon to continue with the implementation of the bishops’ proposals. These proposals depart from a biblical understanding of sex and marriage, in particular by enabling blessings for same sex couples in parish churches. This decision follows a process that has been widely observed as unduly hasty, incomplete and haphazard.

“This is, however, more than just a departure from the biblical understanding of sex and marriage. Sadly, today marks a ‘watershed’ moment, in that it appears that the Church of England no longer sees Scripture as our supreme authority.

“If the bishops continue with the implementation of their proposals, we believe this will have a devastating impact on churches across the country and beyond. It will tear local parish congregations apart, damage the relationship between large numbers of clergy and their bishops and cause churches across the dioceses to feel as though their shepherds have abandoned them. It may also serve a final blow to the unity of the Anglican Communion.

“CEEC longs for a resurgence of faithfulness to biblical teaching, which would deepen the unity for which Jesus prayed in John 17.

“CEEC is committed to supporting the ministry of orthodox evangelical lay people and ministers across the dioceses. In the next few days CEEC will announce a series of provisions for orthodox evangelicals and work to do all it can to ensure evangelical life and witness in the Church of England continues for years to come.”

From there:

The decision of the General Synod to support the bishops of the Church of England in their intention to make provision for blessings for couples in same-sex relationships represents a shocking departure from the teaching of God’s Word, which will have serious and distressing repercussions.

I should stress that there is no disagreement about the great dignity of all people, made in God’s image and deeply loved by him. We all affirm the importance of welcoming everyone to our churches, whatever their sexuality or relational circumstances. The division is about sex and marriage. The Bible’s teaching is clear, as taught by the universal church down the ages, that God intended his good gift of sex to be reserved for the marriage of a man and a woman (see my recent publication Together in Love and Faith? for more detailed teaching on this and related matters).

By offering the prayers they have published, the bishops will be giving authority (to those clergy who wish to use them), to bless in God’s name behaviour which the Bible calls sin. This is a very grievous step to take, which will cause serious spiritual damage and result in deep division within the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion.

Although the blessings will only be formally commended after the bishops publish further guidance in the summer about the context in which they can be used, the direction of travel is clear. In our distress, and perhaps confusion, we should remember that Christ is lovingly sovereign over his church and his purposes will prevail. We should also be encouraged by the principled, robust and united opposition to these proposals from over 40% of the Houses of Clergy and Laity in Synod, as well as a handful of bishops. That is a significant grouping which, in fellowship with the great majority of global Anglicans, alongside faithful Christians of all traditions and denominations, is determined to continue to walk together in obedience to Christ, as we seek to bear witness to him in our lost and needy world. We cannot, however, travel with those who are leading people away from God’s ways.

St Ebbe’s clergy have already declared that we are in impaired communion with the bishops in our diocese, which means that we will not welcome them to preach, confirm, ordain or conduct our ministerial reviews, and we will not take communion with them. The PCC has also taken action to ensure that any money we pay within the diocese is distributed via the Oxford Good Stewards Trust and is only used for faithful gospel ministry and essential administrative costs. We will be working closely with others, especially within the Church of England Evangelical Council, to discuss what other actions we can take, either individually as churches or together, both to distance ourselves from false teaching and to promote the cause of the gospel. As a larger church, we are especially conscious of our responsibility to help and support smaller evangelical churches, as well as faithful clergy and laity who are in the especially vulnerable situation of serving in churches where their congregations are divided or against them on these issues.

The debate within Synod, and the decision it made, bear witness to a division which goes far deeper than that over the particular presenting issue. There are now two distinct groups within the Church of England. One has chosen the way of compromise with the world and disobedience to God’s word; the other is determined to stay faithful to Christ, whatever the cost. It has been very encouraging to see deepening bonds growing between orthodox Anglicans, from different evangelical and other orthodox ‘tribes’. In the months, and no doubt years, ahead we will be seeking to build new structures that will, God willing, enable us to maintain distance from those who have gone down the wrong path, while working together with orthodox Anglicans in the cause of the gospel.

There will be significant challenges ahead, as we are forced to distance ourselves from many within the Church of England, while being faced with bemusement and, no doubt hostility, from the watching world. Perhaps most painfully, we will have to face differences amongst friends about how to respond to these realities. Our consciences and contexts differ. For myself, along with very many others, I am determined to stay to contend for truth and bear witness to Christ within the Church of England, and believe we can do so with integrity, certainly at this time and for the foreseeable future. Others, for varying reasons, whether principled, pragmatic or both, will choose a different path. Let us determine to resist the devil in his attempts to divide us and keep looking to our loving God. We are in desperate need of his mercy, because of our many sins, his wisdom in our perplexity and his strength in our weakness.

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

The General Synod is to vote on whether stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples should be authorised immediately for experimental use rather than first undergoing a full synodical process.

The move would effectively reverse a decision made in the House of Bishops last month…, but seems to be supported by both archbishops.

A total of 13 amendments have been tabled to the motion to be tabled by the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, on Tuesday afternoon, which recognises both the uncertainty surrounding the implementation of Prayers of Love and Faith for same-sex couples, and the progress that has already been made. The Synod’s agreement in February…to commend the prayers has since been challenged by those who want the decision to be removed from the Bishops and given to the Synod.

The Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, has tabled an amendment asking the Bishops “to consider whether some stand-alone services for same-sex couples could be made available for use, possibly on a trial basis, on the timescale envisaged by the motion passed by the Synod in February 2023”.

Read it all.

The move would effectively reverse a decision made in the House of Bishops last month, but seems to be supported by both archbishops https://t.co/BBZVym6KzL

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) November 14, 2023

Where we are right now, is not where any of us would like to be.

But I continue to believe that we can find a way of living in love and faith.

Furthermore, I stand by the statements I made in February. There will need to be some sort of provision. But just as the way forward that is being proposed is pastoral, and in my view does not mean a change in the Church of England’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony, so I believe the reassurance and provision that we need should be pastoral. This is why I will be supporting the amendment being put forward by the Bishop of Oxford because, as things stand, I am concerned that clergy using the commended prayers might find themselves vulnerable to a legal challenge if their use of the prayers looks to someone else to be a standalone service.

Something that allows standalone services for an experimental period seems to me to be a sensible and pastoral way forward. It gives clergy and parishes who want to use the Prayers of Love and Faith the legal protection they need. And because this will be on an opt-in basis, clergy and parishes who in good conscience won’t use the prayers will be under no compunction or compulsion so to do, nor will they be disadvantaged in any way by their decision.

We will, of course, need further discussions about how this provision continues to run through all that we are proposing. I’m sure the Bishop of London will say more about this when we get to that bit of our agenda. I also recognise that the pastoral guidance that is such a key component in this work should not be thought of as a fixed entity but a body of guidance that will evolve.

But my purpose in this address is not to anticipate the debate. Rather, it is to ask us to lift our eyes above the debate to see Jesus.

Read it all.

General @Synod for the @churchofengland starts today. Over the next few days, we’ll be debating and voting on a number of important items.

Pray for all involved, that we may come together well and be granted wisdom in our discussions and decisions. 🙏 pic.twitter.com/LHXGGGk9FM

— Archbishop of York (@CottrellStephen) November 13, 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

Conscious of the forthcoming meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, the Primates reaffirmed their commitment to the Jerusalem Statement of 2008, which describes Gafcon as ‘a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it.’ The Jerusalem Statement rejects the proposition that authentic Anglicans are only those recognised by the Archbishop of Canterbury. On the contrary, the criteria of Anglican identity are outlined in the fourteen points of the Jerusalem Declaration which continue to define authentic Anglicanism, despite the abandonment of many of these features by those who purport to be Anglicans. We have witnessed over the past twenty-five years the slow, but relentless, moral decay in parts of the Anglican Communion where the world’s values have been endorsed and embraced, replacing the clear teaching of God’s word written.

We continue to affirm that we are not leaving the Anglican Communion. We are delighted to work with the Global South (GSFA) in the task of resetting the Communion, which was foreshadowed in the 2008 Jerusalem Statement, and explicitly declared in the Kigali Commitment of 2023. Given the failure of the so-called Instruments of Communion, we shall not be attending the 2024 Primates Meeting in Rome, convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and encourage all orthodox Primates to join us in this stand against those who support a revisionist agenda.

Furthermore, we encourage Gafcon Provinces to consider withdrawing all links with any English diocese whose bishop supports the proposals, currently before the General Synod,to sanction the blessing of same-sex couples. We also extend the right hand of fellowship to and support all bishops, clergy and laity who oppose these revisionist doctrines and courageously uphold the teaching of Christ on the sanctity of marriage as God has ordained it (Matthew 19:4-6). We especially commend those English bishops who have distanced themselves from the egregious recommendations of the House of Bishops.

Read it all.

The November 20023 Statement From The #Gafcon Primates Council–'Furthermore, we encourage Gafcon Provinces to consider withdrawing all links with any English diocese whose bishop supports the proposals, currently before the General Synod,to sanction the blessing of same-sex…

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) November 15, 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

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

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

The key questions raised by this majority view are as follows.

First, on what issues are they proposing that it should be possible for those in the Church of England to disagree? Does this, as the context suggests, include the matters that are currently under dispute in the Church of England, namely, the nature of marriage, the proper context for sexual activity, and what patterns of personal life should be expected of the clergy?

If it does include these matters, on what basis do the majority of the bishops hold that it is legitimate for Christians to disagree about them? To use the traditional theological terminology, on what grounds can these matters be said to be adiaphora?

Secondly, what would a ‘generous theological, ecclesial and pastoral space’ mean in practice?

Is this code for saying that the teaching of the Church of England should be altered to officially encompass the view that same-sex marriages and same-sex sexual relationships are in accordance with the will of God, that the Church should provide recognition and liturgical affirmation for same-sex relationships (including same-sex marriages) and that clergy should be allowed to be in same-sex relationships?

Read it all.

We may subjectively dislike what God has said, but true Christian humility lies in accepting what God has said and acting upon it anyway' Martin Davie https://t.co/EUCULJ0Bk1 #anglican #marriage #theology #sexualethics #anthropology #scripture #religion #uk pic.twitter.com/WyjgnobT0k

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) February 10, 2023