It’s widely rumored that organized religion is going down the drain. While the secularization thesis has been debated for decades, its main components are hardly controversial. Religion has reduced social power: its chief officers have less influence on political ideas and social norms, its language and habits no longer permeate the discourse of public life, and fewer people make collective worship and fellowship the rhythm of their week. Death no longer has a compelling hold on the public imagination: people still die, but usually not in the home or in their youth, and few people are terrified of the prospect of eternal hell. Meanwhile, with the possible exception of minority faiths among recent immigrants, it’s become increasingly difficult to socialize young people into a religion. It’s not that religion adheres to egregious ideas so much as that the whole notion of being habituated into a committed community of ritual and tradition seems incongruous.

There’s little that’s specifically Christian about all this. Real as the church’s failures are, most of its challenges it shares with other institutions associated with the pretechnological era. But in any case, in most congregations in the US mainline and the UK equivalent, a disproportionate number of the people are over age 65. The prospects for self-replication in 30 years’ time aren’t promising.

What are we to do about this? I see three main options…

Read it all.

“We have no idea what lies around the corner. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but the way the Holy Spirit makes Christ present to us seems to be ever changing.”

– Samuel Wellshttps://t.co/Vh9j7Gfe1E

— theChristianCentury (@ChristianCent) October 18, 2024

In summary, almost everything of substance that the Archbishop says about PLF in the quotation above (apart from “the church is deeply split over this”) is demonstrably either false or misleading unless the previous explanations and commitments offered by him and the bishops to General Synod are false or misleading. 

The Archbishop’s interview gives the impression that the Church of England, with the agreement of the majority of bishops, now teaches that sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual relationships, are acceptable as long as the couple are in a committed relationship, either a civil partnership or a marriage. Furthermore, he claims that the Church of England will provide a service of prayer and blessing in church for couples in such relationships. 

In fact, the theological argument presented by the bishops (and sight of the legal advice to bishops might demonstrate that this is also crucial for PLF’s legality) has been that any sexual relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman is contrary to the Church’s doctrine of marriage. Despite this, it has nevertheless been claimed by the majority of bishops that any committed same-sex couple (with or without a legal status) can be offered PLF as prayers within an existing authorised liturgy. This is even though it is also acknowledged that because their relationship may be sexual, such prayers are indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine.

The Archbishop’s answer might have been “better” in the sense of probably being more appealing to Alastair Campbell. It is, however, in fact so highly misleading and inaccurate as to suggest a disturbing level of some combination of ignorance, misrepresentation, dishonesty and inaccuracy on the Archbishop’s part in his account of the church’s recent decisions, its doctrine, and its stated rationale for PLF. 

Our dire situation as a church is bad enough as a result of having been so divided because of the direction set by the Archbishops and most of the bishops. The fact that there are such deep theological disagreements on these matters that need to be addressed cannot and must not be avoided. However, such significantly erroneous statements as these from no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury, unless swiftly followed by an apology and correction, can only add further to the widespread erosion of trust and growing sense of disbelief, betrayal, deception, anger and despair now felt across much of the Church of England in relation to both the PLF process and our archiepiscopal leadership.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has now made claims about the debate on sexuality and the Church's teaching which are demonstrably untrue. Why has he done this, and what will be the impact on trust, the unity of the Church, and the future of the debate?https://t.co/Falt0kuP5Q

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) October 15, 2024

I want to address the third and fourth “existential crises” Warren Cole Smith suggested we address in his public letter to the ACNA on “Why the Anglican Church faces existential challenges.”. Under the challenge of “Theological Education,” he writes:

“Because ACNA has so many refugees from other denominations, it is tempting to call it a ‘melting pot.’ But the current reality is less a melting pot than a salad bowl.

That is a glib way of saying that a lot of Anglicans are not … well … truly formed in the Anglican faith. They have retained the spiritual formation of the tradition from which they came — everything from Calvary Chapel and Vineyard to high church Episcopalians and Catholics. Again, that diversity can be a strength, but it is a diversity that must be more intentionally integrated into Anglican theology and polity.”

He goes on to note that many nationally recognized seminaries offer a course or two that allow them to claim they have an “Anglican Track” but that these courses are minimal at best. And so, he concludes that this lack of Anglican formation in the clergy presents a vulnerability to leaders at odds with the history and fundamental doctrines of the ACNA. He then goes on in his fourth crisis to cite the recent problem with the Luminous Church in the ACNA diocese of C4SO as Exhibit A, a congregation whose clergy and website affirmed LGBTQ Pride events and played “fast and loose” with fundamental Anglican doctrines of baptism—among other things.

Read it all.

A wonderful end to a great week of @The_ACNA Provincial Council and Assembly! Praying for God's continued guidance for Abp Wood and the province moving forward. pic.twitter.com/LNQQF5u5ot

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) June 28, 2024

And here is my speech, given after two amendments were discussed and voted on (and so limited to three minutes):

This is not a debate between love and legalities. Those who oppose this motion do so because we want to be true to the love of Christ for all—‘if you love me, keep my commandments. Remain in my love’. Love rejoices with the truth, and the truth is that, if this motion is passed, three things will certainly happen.

First, trust—already at a low—will be finally broken. There has been no adequate theology, no adequate process, no transparency, no coherence. LLF has failed all four tests of trust.

Secondly, the Church will split. Not in formal structures—I cannot see how that could work. But it will in practice. Nowhere in scripture, nowhere in the history of the church catholic, nowhere in the Church’s own doctrine—nowhere in past statements by the bishops until very recently, has this been a ‘thing indifferent’ on which we can agree to disagree. And we do not.

Thirdly, the Church will continue in serious decline. In fourteen years, we have halved in size. In one diocese, the number of children has dropped by 50% in four years. There are no real signs that this is slowing, yet alone reversing. After the Scottish Episcopal Church changed its doctrine it declined by 40% in six years. The Church of Scotland will be extinct by around 2038—just fourteen years from now. No Western denomination has changed its doctrine of marriage without then accelerating in decline. We will be no different. This is not ‘catastrophising’; this is not a power play. This is honesty; this is reality.

So if you do vote for this proposal, please do it with your eyes wide open—knowing it will destroy trust, knowing it will divide the Church, and knowing it will lead to greater decline. I don’t feel any of that is a demonstration of the love of God. Vote for this—only if you think that distrust, disunity, and decline is a price worth paying. If not, vote against and let us think again together.

Read it all.

What happened at General Synod last weekend? What became clear in the debate about sexuality and marriage? Why is there so much lack of honesty and transparency? And where do we go from here? @talkChristianly https://t.co/e1lpLJ3JVl

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) July 10, 2024

As Vice-Chair of the GTF and a Trustee for the American Anglican Council, I’ve been honored to be part of the work we did to improve our canons over the last five years. I’m particularly thankful for the now-ratified canon that places a canonical duty upon our diocesan bishops to ensure that protection plans are in place to prevent abuse to both children and adults within our churches and ministries. Sample protection plans are available through the Executive Committee of the ACNA to aid bishops in developing protection plans that fit their diocesan contexts. Perhaps even more “province-changing” are the now-ratified canons requiring diocesan bishops to develop clear processes and procedures to report misconduct by priests, deacons, and even laity. These new canons seek to improve consistency and fairness to both accusers and the accused across the province, providing easy on-ramps and off-ramps for accusations of misconduct and increasing the transparency with which such allegations are handled.

Additional changes to our disciplinary canons were ratified as well and, by God’s grace, will act to increase the tools available to our province to protect the flock of Christ from abuse and misconduct. Importantly, these changes include granting the archbishop (with the consent of a panel of senior bishops) power to give a godly admonition or inhibit a wayward bishop. They also grant the dean of the province the same power towards any wayward archbishop. God forbid such powers will need to be exercised, but discipline for every level of the Church leads to greater discipleship, as we all seek to glorify God in his Church.

Please pray for Archbishop-elect Steve Wood as he takes the provincial crozier tomorrow and carries on the good legacy of leadership begun by Archbishop Duncan and Archbishop Beach. Pray for the Governance Task Force as we continue to work on further revisions to the disciplinary canons of the ACNA. And pray for the ACNA in general, that we might continue to proclaim the Good News of Christ with boldness and vigor. What an honor it is to see God’s Spirit on the move in this branch of his body, as we seek to express the English Reformation in a way that is orthodox, evangelical, catholic, and, with the help of good canons, disciplined in all our doings.

Read it all.

Canon Andrew Rowell of the ACNA Governance Taskforce breaks down the developments in the new canons affirmed at Provincial Assembly, the difference between Assembly and Council, and what it all means moving forward: https://t.co/ZaaTTSIwe7

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) June 27, 2024

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) has been one of the success stories in recent American church history. Most denominations in the U.S. are in decline, but ACNA, founded just 15 years ago, has grown to more than 1,000 congregations and a membership of 120,000.

It began as a movement of conservative Episcopalians frustrated with the liberal drift of that denomination. Today, though, most members of ACNA are not former Episcopalians. They (we, as I am a member) are new converts or — in many cases — refugees from other mainline and evangelical denominations nourished by ACNA’s combination of Reformed theology and adherence to biblical authority, its evangelical vibrancy, and the beauty of its ancient, incarnational liturgy. As I have written elsewhere, Anglicanism has the potential to breathe new life into the evangelical movement.

But the denomination is experiencing growing pains. Its growth has flattened, and there is growing discontent in the denomination about its inability (or unwillingness) to address head-on some vital issues.

The denomination holds a national conference every five years, and the next one is…[finishing up today] in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, and the delegates to the conference face some important issues that need action.

Read it all.

(ANALYSIS/@WarrenColeSmith) The Anglican Church in North America has been one of the success stories in recent American church history. But its growth has flattened, and there is growing discontent about its inability to address some vital issues.https://t.co/kkEXLJf7iM

— Religion Unplugged (@ReligionMag) June 21, 2024

And all clergy have taken public vows at ordination that they believe the doctrine of the Church of England, that they will uphold it, and that they will teach and expound it.

Do you believe the doctrine of the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it, and in your ministry will you expound and teach it?

Ordinands   I believe it and will so do.

This includes the teaching of Jesus on marriage which is expressed in Canon B30 and explained in the marriage liturgy.

How, then, can we be ‘undecided’? How can some believe one thing, and others another? It can only be that we have, amongst our bishops and other clergy, people who simply do not understand the doctrine of their own Church or, understanding it, think it is wrong. That is the problem we have. What is the solution to this?

Martyn’s solution is—as he says openly in his article—‘a spirit of generosity and pragmatism.’ In other words, to preserve institutional unity, we must pragmatically give up on the idea that we actually share common beliefs, that we expect clergy to be faithful to their ordination vows, and that we expect our bishops to believe and teach the doctrine of the Church they lead. But what kind of institution will that be? A husk, a hollow shell of a ‘church’, retaining its outward, institutional, form, but having lost its heart.

Read it all.

Unity matters in our debates about sexuality—and so does truth | Psephizo https://t.co/Q1Dwp6xsw1 via @psephizo

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) June 24, 2024

It is a mistake to think that new wineskins must necessarily look like old ones. Sometimes, a design benefits from a little tweaking and it seems that the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans have done just that at their meeting in Egypt.

Having reaffirmed their view that the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury have forfeited their leadership role of the global Communion, the Assembly elected new leaders from among themselves.

In accordance with the Cairo Covenant, they have set up their own Primates Council, Council of Bishops and Assembly, reflecting three of the traditional Instruments of Communion.   Yet, interestingly they have chosen not to elect a new Archbishop of Canterbury, nor identify a new Seat of Augustine, nor appoint one of their own as ‘first among equals’.

As the Chairman of the GSFA, Rt Revd Justin Badi, explained in his opening address:

“All those who are committed to preserving the historic Anglican doctrine and teachings are the true Anglicans. We respect and relate to the seat of St Augustine. It is always our prayer that the person who sits on that seat will always be faithful to the faith we once received from the Saints and faithfully transmitted.

At first glance, the decision not to replace the Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be a mark of respect and a way of leaving the door open for repentance and reconciliation. Some have even seen it as a mark of weakness.

Yet placed in context, this decision appears to be at the heart of the GSFA redesign.

Read it all.

Is it possible that the GSFA have, in fact, replaced the Archbishop of Canterbury – not with a person – but with a covenant? @JustinBadiArama https://t.co/ks44sjk148

— Anglican Futures (@AnglicanFutures) June 20, 2024

So, what’s the way out?

Step forward, Revd Sam Ferguson, the Rector of The Falls Church Anglican in Virginia, USA, who also addressed the GSFA gathering.  

Revd Ferguson does not see the current controversies as a threat, or something to be managed, or put to one side – instead he explained that the controversy was a gift and an opportunity.  “If you look at the history of the Church”, he said, “Christian doctrine is typically produced in the pressure of heresy and controversy, not in a vacuum.”

He described the LGBTQ movement as, “a flower on a tree, that is a completely a new way of understanding what it means to be human – so underlying the whole LGBTQ movement are a whole different set of assumptions about being human.” 

His thesis was that to address these assumptions, which affect us all, the Church needs to discover an ever more compelling vision of biblical anthropology, which will then shape our response with compassion and clarity.  Compassion for individuals who experience pain. Clarity because the truth is not subjective.

Living up to the challenge, in less than an hour, he set out three of the unarticulated assumptions which shape the world in which we live and are seen in the LGBT movement.  He then offered a glorious, biblical alternative to each one. 

1. I am a self-made individual, answerable to no-one
2. My sense of self is located in my feelings rather than any objective reality
3. I find my hope in happiness (and sex) and my healing in transition

As he travelled from creation to the new creation, Ferguson showed compassion for the fallen world and pointed to the resurrection hope for hurting people.  He challenged those present that the church needed to offer “a thick enough ecclesia, Christian community, to come around people who are hurting – but it is a Spirit-shaped community and a Spirit-shaped transformation.”

The presentation was steeped in his own American culture, yet his biblical exegesis landed with those from all nations.  The Q&A just kept going and when time was eventually called, he was surrounded by delegates from all over the world. There was no ‘deep listening’ – but those listening wanted more. 

Read it all.

The CofE bishops are stuck because they cannot agree on the answer to a simple question – “Is same-sex sex sinful?” Can the GSFA Assembly help? https://t.co/JKE1AgzVya

— Anglican Futures (@AnglicanFutures) June 14, 2024

In his workshop today on Anglican identity and how Anglicans read the Bible, the Rev. Dr. Ashley Null made this very point by citing Cranmer’s work. He explained how Cranmer is the forebearer of the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, the first Bible my parents gave to me. If you’ve ever read that Bible, you know that when a particular word or topic appears in the scripture, there is a number that takes you to a list of all the scriptures that cite that same word, theme, or topic. This is exactly what Cranmer did in his work. He took to heart St. Augustine’s teaching that we should always let scripture interpret itself. Scripture interprets scripture. When a passage of scripture is “dark,” in Cranmer’s words, we should look for a passage where the same word, passage, or theme is used in a way that brings its meaning to light.

Therefore, the sixteenth century Anglican reformers understood sola scriptura to mean that we read the scripture together in light of both the scripture itself and the church that has gone before us. As an example, Dr. Null described a historic incident where a German prince sought a biblical interpretation from Luther and Melanchthon that would have allowed him to consort with one favorite mistress over his many others—a scandal they sought to justify using the Old Testament. Cranmer responded with a condemnation of their supposed biblical defense on the grounds that, since the time of Christ and the New Testament, no one in scripture ever permitted or justified bigamy. In other words, if you come up with a new interpretation of the Bible that no one has ever come up with, by definition, it must be wrong.

The Bible study this morning raised questions about the extent to which deep listening (as Archbishop Chung described it) is within the boundaries of the fundamental declarations in the Cairo Covenant which are the plain and grammatical reading of scripture and its historic interpretation by the Church fathers. At best, the message of deep listening struck a confusing chord. This may be a moment for the primates of the Global South to bring clarity out of the confusion by restating how we study the Bible together in keeping with the fundamental declarations of the Cairo Covenant and not simply in keeping with our own cultures.

Read it all.

Canon Phil's report on Day 3, Thursday, of the GSFA Assembly 2024: https://t.co/gdWvbcV8Y0

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) June 14, 2024

What is to be welcomed in this latest article is that it seems to acknowledge our problems are ultimately doctrinal and that our understanding of unity has to face that reality. This is because unity and doctrine belong together: different doctrines will, it acknowledges, require different spaces within one church. This represents a significant development that opens up conversations with ecumenical theology and practice but it is also one whose logic needs to be carried through carefully and consistently. There is the danger of rushing forward and falling into an unprincipled and incoherent pluralism which seeks to give equal standing to contradictory doctrines and practices. There is also the danger of failing to give the proper degree of space necessary to secure the highest degree of communion possible. 

If we are to proceed properly with this “reset” we need the bishops, members of General Synod, and the Church of England as whole (including various “stakeholders” already creating their own “space” in the new networks of the Alliance and Together) to:

• find a way forward which will allow both “freedom for each group” and “genuine expression of our unity in the Body of Christ, and in our shared Anglican heritage”;
• recognise that consensus “usually emerges, even though it may take time”;
• take seriously the “call to be careful and to respect and value the processes of the Church for collective discernment”;
• show that we believe both that “unity matters – it really matters” and that it is “important…to contend for right doctrine” and unity and doctrine cannot be separated.

There are still real risks. These include an over-emphasis on a supposed “new spirit of generosity and pragmatism”, the continuing influence among bishops of a flawed understanding of what it means for them to be “a focus of unity” detached from them upholding doctrine, and the desire on the part of many simply to “get PLF/LLF done” (in the way they want). 

If unity matters, can that be based on anything other than agreed doctrine? Do Martyn Snow's proposals for a reset address the challenges facing the LLF process? Can we avoid another car crash at Synod? @goddardaj @simonsarmiento https://t.co/A5Y5RaezVR

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) June 11, 2024

So we are celebrating being one-fifth smaller as a church (in terms of attendance) than we were in 2019.

These kinds of figures are always easier to grasp in visual form, so this is what the graphs look like:

(These graphs are from the papers for the Archbishops’ Council in January, when the first figures were known. I am not sure why the information has been released now, four months later, when the figures have not changed much if at all. The release seem to coincide with communication from the meeting of the House of Bishops, in which encouraging stories of growth were shared; this provides important context for that.)

In terms of the goals of the Church to see decline turned around and become growth, this is not very encouraging news. It means that not only have we not seen overall growth, we have not seen an end to decline. In fact, the rate of decline has not yet slowed, and is perhaps getting faster.

It could be argued that this is almost all the result of Covid lockdown losses, and we are still to see the full recovery. But I think that is now quite hard to sustain: this is now the third year since lockdown; other institutions seem to have made any recovery they expected; and other churches seem to have already fully bounced back (this is certainly the case here in my city). The awkward question remains about the national Church’s response, and in particular the comments of the Archbishops, which closed church buildings unnecessarily, and appeared to communicate that in-person attendance was not essential anyway. It appears as though many Anglicans have taken this seriously, and the habit of church attendance has been lost.

Once more: whither the Church of England? | Psephizo https://t.co/BnPfhGT5ke

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) May 22, 2024

But you cannot talk about the goodness of the human body without then immediately discussing the importance of the binary of bodily forms we are given as male and female.

With regard to the matter of biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (or some might say gender), we are keen to emphasise that while these can be distinguished, they cannot be separated. We recognise that how we live out our roles as male or female ‘is not simply the result of biological or genetic factors, but of multiple elements having to do with temperament, family history, culture, experience, education, the influence of friends, family members and respected persons as well as other formative situations.’ We also recognise that roles attributed to the sexes may vary according to time and space. Therefore, ‘rigid cultural stereotypes of masculinity and femininity are… unfortunate and undesirable because they can create unreasonable pressure on children to present or behave in particular ways.’ However, it is clear that the sexual identity of the person as man or woman is not purely a cultural or social construction and that it belongs to the specific manner in which the image of God exists (p 8).

I cannot think of a better short summary anywhere in Christian literature of the givenness of sex binary and its relation to the various expressions of sex difference in different cultural and social contexts. Sex difference is a given; but how that difference expresses itself in different cultures will vary.

Finally, the statement then sets out what all this means in a practical and pastoral response to those who are experiencing distress or confusion about their ‘gender identity’.

We recognise that such pastoral accompaniment is complex, encompassing legal, medical, psychological, theological, spiritual and pedagogical elements. It takes place within the context of ever-changing and polarising developments in the political, cultural and commercial spheres…

Thus it is that we speak to those adult members in our Catholic communities who have chosen to transition socially and medically: ‘You are still our brothers and sisters. We cannot be indifferent to your struggle and the path you may have chosen. The doors of the Church are open to you, and you should find, from all members of the Church, a welcome that is compassionate, sensitive and respectful’ (p 8).

Read it all.

What does a biblical understanding of ourselves as humanity created male and female in the image of God say to the current debates about gender identity? How have the Catholic bishops expressed this, and why is this statement significant? https://t.co/N6cwCylvKz

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) May 1, 2024

The provincial proposal being advocated by CEEC and the Alliance would involve the exercise of geographical episcopacy as it would involve bishops having responsibility for particular geographical areas. I have previously made this point in a theoretical description of what a conservative third province (the ‘Province of Mercia’) might look like.

‘Like the existing provinces of Canterbury and York, the new province would consist of parishes, deaneries, archdeaconries and dioceses. The number of dioceses that would initially be formed would obviously depend on how many parishes opted to join the new province, but one possible pattern would be for there to initially be four dioceses, one in the Southwest, one in the South and Southeast, one in the Midlands and East Anglia, and one in the North. Chaplaincies in Europe would come under the diocese for the South and Southeast.

Each diocese would initially have one bishop and one of these would be the archbishop of the province. There would be no fixed archiepiscopal diocese and the office of archbishop would subsequently be held by the senior bishop of the province.

A parish church in each diocese would be the cathedral. This would contain the bishop’s chair and would be used for diocesan services such as the enthronement of the bishop, ordinations, and the renewal of ordination vows on Maundy Thursday. The diocese would be named after the location of the cathedral and the incumbent would carry the title Dean. There would be no cathedral chapter and when not being used for diocesan services the cathedral would act as a normal parish church.’

As can be clearly seen in this description the geographical nature of episcopacy would be maintained in such a provincial arrangement. Bell’s suggestion that the geographical nature of the episcopate precludes a provincial solution is therefore mistaken.

Read it all.

I have just posted a new blog post, 'Geographical episcopacy – a further response to Charlie Bell.'https://t.co/5qMh71WfIv

— Martin Davie (@MartinBDavie) March 11, 2024

Some, who mistakenly view the Church of England as a unified, coherent body – may therefore delight in the shrinking congregations and generally low morale that defines it nowadays. I delight in none of these things, because I love the CofE.

Look more closely though, and you’ll realise that there is not one Church of England – but two. There’s the Reverend Dr Jekyll, the one who performs invaluable work on the ground; burying the dead, visiting the sick, educating more than a quarter of our nation’s schoolchildren to a much higher standard than the state normally achieves.

This Church manages the food banks, playgroups, dementia cafés and loneliness workshops. It does its best to protect some of the most valuable parts of our nation’s physical and cultural heritage. Its parish priests do this for little money; its thousands of volunteers do it for none at all.

Then there is the other Church of England – the Reverend Mr Hyde. This is a church of unaccountable committees and upward failure, resulting in perhaps the least impressive bench of bishops since Pope Gregory first observed “non angli, sed angeli”. Members of this caste speak in identikit managerial jargon, which from an institution that has provided some of the most beautiful cadences and turns of phrase in the English language is depressing.

Read it all.

Several points expressed well. And they won’t stop. It’s like the control room at Chernobyl – total meltdown.

The Church leadership is destroying the CoE I love https://t.co/VUVRNZ06Te

— Tom Sander 🚴 (@RevThomasSander) March 6, 2024

I want to make a threefold response to what Bell says in these two paragraphs.

First, creating a new provincial structure for the Church of England to provide for the differing positions of conservatives and liberals is not a ‘fundamental threat’ to the Church of England’s ecclesiology.

What CEEC is asking for is internal differentiation within the Church of England by means of a re-configuration of the Church’s current provincial system. This could take the form of a new province for conservatives alongside Canterbury and York, a new province for liberals alongside Canterbury and York or a re-working of the two existing provinces to cover the whole country with conservatives in Canterbury and liberals in York. [1]

The key point to note about this proposal is that it is in line with the existing ecclesiology of the Church of England. The Church of England has historically consisted, and continues to consist, as a combination  of two separate provinces, each their own Archbishop (both of whom have metropolitical authority within their own province and neither of whom is subject to the other), and each having its own provincial synodical structure consisting of a provincial Convocation made up of the two Houses of Bishops and Clergy, and an attendant House of Laity.  A meeting of the General Synod is simply a joint meeting of these two provincial synods, and the two Convocations retain the power both to veto legislation proposed in the General Synod and to make provision for matters relating to their province (see Canon H.1 and Article 7 of the Constitution of General Synod).

Adding another province into the mix, or reconfiguring the two existing provinces, would not alter this ecclesiological structure in any fundamental way.[2] What it would mean is that the two (or three)  provinces of the Church of England could continue to meet together in General Synod to debate and legislate on matters of common concern, while their provincial synods could legislate to either maintain or change the Church of England’s current teaching and practice with regard to marriage and human sexuality, thus allowing both conservatives and liberals to have what they are looking for  within their own province or provinces.

Each province would hold that the other province or provinces is (or are) part of the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and there would be transferability of ministry without re-ordination between them subject to a minister being prepared to accept the doctrine and discipline of the province to which he or she was transferring.

The Church of England could thus stay together, but in a way which respected the conscientious convictions of both sides and would prevent the Church of England breaking apart entirely.

Read it all.

Martin Davie–A response to Meg Warner ‘Does the Bible really say … that sex outside marriage is wrong? https://t.co/tYzlpsnfpt #christianity #sexualethics #marriage #bible #anglican #anthropology pic.twitter.com/qdQI0oGk5j

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) May 30, 2019

The situation the Church of England is now in.

The situation in which the Church of England finds itself as a result of the vote on the amended House of Bishops motion on Living in Love and Faith is a peculiar one.

In its official sources of doctrine, the Church of England maintains unchanged the traditional beliefs of the Christian Church as a whole, based on the teaching of the Bible:

a) That marriage is between two people of the opposite sex, that the sole legitimate place for sexual intercourse to take place is within marriage thus defined, and that any form of marriage or sexual activity outside these parameters is sinful.

b) That sinful activity needs to be addressed through repentance, absolution and amendment of life.

c) That those who are ordained ought to be living lives of visible holiness.

However, the result of November’s Synod vote is going to be that the House of Bishops will commend prayers of blessing for use in normal church services for those in same-sex marriages and/or sexually active same-sex relationships and with also authorise  experimental ‘standalone’ services to mark such marriages and relationships. This liturgical provision will not contain any call for those in such marriages and relationships to repent of them, to receive absolution and to amend their lives so that they are in conformity the Church’s teaching.

In addition, it seems almost certain that the House of Bishops will institute a change in the Church of England’s existing practice which will mean that those who are in same-sex marriages and/or same-sex sexual relationships will be permitted to be ordained. This will mean that lives of visible holiness in relation to marriage and sexual conduct will no longer be a pre-requisite for ordination.

The result of these changes will be that as a result of the action of the majority of the bishops the Church of England will be a Church that still upholds beliefs a, b and c above in terms of its official doctrine, but will have ceased to uphold them in its practice.

The question I want to address in the remainder of this paper is how conservative Christians in the Church of England who continue to uphold the traditional Christian beliefs listed above should relate to their bishops in this new situation.

Read it all.

Martin Davie–A response to Meg Warner ‘Does the Bible really say … that sex outside marriage is wrong? https://t.co/tYzlpsnfpt #christianity #sexualethics #marriage #bible #anglican #anthropology pic.twitter.com/qdQI0oGk5j

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) May 30, 2019

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

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

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

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

Christianity is a very strange and a very difficult faith. It is difficult to believe, and it is even more difficult to do what we were asked to do last Sunday — take up the cross of Christ and follow. Yet, in spite of the gainsayers, I do rather wonder whether Britain is as secular as the sociologists of religion maintain. In churches that take the trouble to present a well-conducted liturgy, to preach the difficult and challenging faith of Christ, people still respond.

The evangelicals in the Church of England manage to fill churches. The splendid liturgy of the Western Rite attracts thousands every Sunday to the great oratory churches in Knightsbridge and Birmingham. Even the oft-repeated claim that there are no more vocations to religious orders is not completely true — the Blackfriars in Oxford have a flourishing novitiate.

There has never been a time when it was easy to believe that a loving creator allows the innocent to die in earthquakes or children to suffer from cancer. Since the feminist revolution, and the change in societal attitudes to sexuality, the churches undoubtedly face some problems. But I do not believe that either the sheer difficulty in believing at all, or the sexual revolution, is what keeps people away from church.

Christianity is not destroyed by rival ideologies, such as Darwinism. It is just slowly gnawed at by secularism, consumerism, the “strange disease of modern life”. To visit a church where they still offer business as usual is to be stimulated, as no secular equivalent can stimulate: disturbed as no drama or work of art could disturb.

Read it all.

Excellent article by A N Wilson in today's Times. Well deserved praise for #frgraemerowlands, and a mention for the choir (or Latin Chorus!) aswell. pic.twitter.com/yTShNu2jyA

— ssktmusic (@ssktmusic) September 14, 2023

What is new in The Times‘s “story”, however, is the particularly high level of pessimism among my colleagues. Declining numbers, churches closing, exhaustion at trying to hold things together… But I greet that “news” with something of a shrug. The tide comes in, the tide goes out. Because, if it is true that there is a God, then none of this really matters at all. Unpopularity doesn’t make the creeds false just as (another huge mistake) popularity doesn’t make them true.

But a nervous church leadership doesn’t like the ebb to happen on their watch. And so, spooked by these dismal stories of decline, they seek a very secular model of success. Borrowing their thinking from management consultants trying to revive ailing companies like Wilko and Pizza Hut, the leadership focuses on what the customer wants, sets sales targets, closes down underused outlets, and re-energises the sales team for greater, more frenetic activity. But the more we run around like headless chickens, the more desperate, and less attractive we look. Inevitably, the job becomes impossible and the workers in the vineyard become drained of motivation. As The Times reveals, a third of clergy have considered quitting in the past five years. This, then, is what’s new about the Church of England’s current death spiral. “All of the church’s problems stem from the clergy’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone,” as Pascal almost wrote.

The latest, and most ridiculous of these corporate reinventions of the Church is the idea that the clergy no longer has to work on Sundays – because other people are busy on that day. One deanery in Cornwall will have 23 churches, and only two full-time clergy. One of these “will work primarily in the community, looking for exciting opportunities to grow churches for people who have never been to church,” the area dean bubbled enthusiastically. He went on: “I’ve heard it has come as a bit of a shock that she won’t be working regularly on Sunday mornings.” But this is just another example of the “exciting opportunities” that await us as the Church is dismantled from within by those who are supposed to be protecting it.

Read it all.

When will our Church leaders stop behaving like deranged management consultants? | @giles_fraser https://t.co/Ria1E3znw2

— UnHerd (@unherd) August 31, 2023

Following on from the broo-ha-ha about Stephen Cottrell’s comments on the problems of calling God ‘Father‘, the latest episode in the debate about God’s sex and pronouns comes from Hereford Cathedral. Last Sunday, their main Communion service began with an Introit which re-writes Psalm 23 with God identified using female pronouns.

The Lord is my Shepherd, I have all I need, She makes me lie down in green meadows, Beside the still waters, She will lead.

She restores my soul, She rights my wrongs, She leads me in a path of good things, And fills my heart with songs.

Even though I walk, through a dark and dreary land, There is nothing that can shake me, She has said She won’t forsake me, I’m in her hand.

She sets a table before me, in the presence of my foes, She anoints my head with oil, And my cup overflows.

Surely, surely goodness and kindness will follow me, All the days of my life, And I will live in her house, Forever, forever and ever.

Glory be to our Mother, and Daughter, And to the Holy of Holies, As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, World without end. Amen.

There are several things to note about this piece, and its use in the Cathedral. (You can watch its performance at the Cathedral’s livestream on YouTube, but these are deleted after about a week, so I have captured it and posted it on my own channel, and the link is at the end of this piece.)

As I will explore below, it is a central conviction of Christian theology that God does not have a sex—because God is not bodily. To believe that God is sexed is a serious error, and that is why some people argue that we should avoid using the male pronoun for God. The difficulty here is that, because all the human people we know are either male or female, few languages have a commonly used personal pronoun that is not sexed, and that includes the Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek that the Bible is written in. Perhaps because of dominance of men in public roles in most pre-modern cultures, until very recently the default choice of generic pronoun has been male, so if the sex of someone was unspecified, then ‘he’ was taken to be inclusive of all. Thus we have used male pronouns for the personal but not sexed God of Christian faith.

Read it all.

What are the theological, pastoral, and institutional issues around the use of 'she' for God at Hereford Cathedral's service? Does the leadership of the Church of England have the courage to resist the tide of gender ideology? https://t.co/ImhRpuOJze

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) July 21, 2023

Meg Munn criticises the Council, not for pulling the plug on the ISB, but for not doing it soon enough. She singles out Justin Welby as the one who has undermined her role and not been robust enough with the other two members—something confirmed by Justin’s extraordinary distancing himself from the Council’s decision during Questions, giving the clear impression that he was throwing the rest of the Council under the bus in the face of negative publicity. Her comments about Steve and Jas are damning:

Read it all.

What has contributed to the lost of trust across the Church of England? How was that evidenced in last week's meeting of General Synod? What can be done to restore the trust we need to work together?https://t.co/dL5ruZuVfM

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) July 14, 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

Jane Chevous, a representative of survivors of church abuse, opened the proceedings with a damning description of the events leading up to the decision to sack the board, the incompetent way it was handled and the devastating impact it has had on already vulnerable people.

“For as we learned this weekend,” she explained, “Getting the papers prepared for Synod was more important than the lives of survivors. At 12.17 that day Jasvinder phoned me to share the devastating news – I felt like my whole world had crumbled around me. I had trusted the ISB. I had hope. And now that hope had been snatched from me and trampled underfoot.” [at 5.14 on video]

Despite their claims to the contrary, the response of the Council representatives, particularly the Archbishop of York, Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell, was defensive and self-asserting. In his introductory remarks he said,

“I want you to know Synod, though I can’t make you believe me, but I want you to know, that the decisions we took were some of the most painful decisions I have ever had to be part of in my life and work, but we took them believing them to be the were the right decisions for the safeguarding of the church? Could we have communicated them better? Could things have been different in the past? They are things we can discuss and they are certainly things we can learn from – I do want you to know that my concern has always been for the safeguarding of the church.” [at 18.50 on video]

Read it all.

As a trustee of Anglican Futures I'm biased but this is really good on how the Church of England is just repeating its safeguarding errors during Synod in York.https://t.co/EIRD6KKKu3

— Dan Leafe (@DanLeafe1) July 10, 2023

Many—including a number of leaders of various networks in a letter, subsequently supported by 22 bishops—are arguing the only proper route, given the subject matter, is the usual process of Synodical scrutiny and approval under canon B2. This would require two-thirds support in each of Synod’s three Houses in order to determine the prayers had consensus and were not indicative of a departure from doctrine. This seemingly technical procedural matter raises important questions as to the sort of church we want to be—the update opens by talking about “inclusive participation” (para 1)—and whether any route other than B2 exceeds the powers of non-Synodical bodies on such a contentious matter and is unconstitutional. I have explored these questions in some detail here (with a summary here).

Third, it originally appeared the prayers might be offered for a wide range of non-marital committed relationships. This is now less prominent (although the still undefined and novel category of “covenant friendship” continues to be highlighted) with more focus on same-sex relationships and an emphasis on these being “demonstrably faithful, exclusive, and permanent” (para 12). How a relationship could prove it meets these three criteria remains unclear. Making a legal status act as the gateway is problematic because the service would then appear to be affirming that status and civil partnerships do not require vows. The most contentious matters here are whether they can be used for sexual relationships other than marriage and/or for those in a civil same-sex marriage.

It would appear the bishops originally thought that the prayers, as they are silent in relation to sexual intimacy or the legal status of the couple, had gained sufficient consensus but this now looks less secure. This is in part because while the prayers may be silent and hence ambiguous, to enable their use in such contexts would require a change in teaching relating to sex and marriage. This is something which cannot be so easily camouflaged, which many are unwilling to embrace, and for which there has not yet been sufficient legal and theological justification. The focus of attention has therefore moved from the prayers to the second area of work which was totally undeveloped back in February but where the bishops perhaps should have begun their discernment…’

Read it all (my emphasis).

As part of @churchofengland LLF, Rev Andrew Goddard @goddardaj and our assistant curate Rev Georgina @TechieGeorgina have been having conversations about identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage. View their latest conversation (link below) #LivingInLoveAndFaith pic.twitter.com/Ig3RCrzWON

— St John's Hyde Park (@StJohnsHP) January 31, 2023

Any decision at the end of the LLF process was going to face challenges but the responses to the bishops’ proposals suggest that there are four particular failures in their approach which have made matters worse. 

Firstly, in contrast to the detailed work of LLF, and failing to draw on that work, the bishops gave minimal explanation or theological justification for their proposals. Secondly, they proposed a liturgical response to different life situations without—as the ten points above demonstrate—offering any account of what pattern of same-sex relationship might be considered fitting within Christian discipleship. When asked about this the Bishop of London said in an answer (to Q163) in February, that we need to wait for the Pastoral Guidance as that “will include setting out unequivocally the necessary qualities for a relationship to be considered chaste, faithful and holy”. Thirdly, although committing to uphold the doctrine of marriage and thus rejecting a change to extend this to include same-sex marriage, the bishops were not clear as to what else—particularly in relation to sexual behaviour—should be considered as part of the doctrine of marriage. Nor were they clear whether they were proposing to change current teaching on sexual ethics. It was, for example, unclear whether what the Bishop of London had stated only in November last year in answer to a Synod question still applied: 

Canon B 30 does indeed continue to articulate the doctrine of the Church, including asserting that holy matrimony is the proper context for sexual intimacy. 

All three of these failings arose because it seems there was not sufficient time to achieve any consensus on them. The problem is that without any clarity and consensus in these areas, the proposals are inherently unstable and arguably incoherent. 

A further cause of instability and incoherence is a fourth feature of the proposals (number 7 above): to justify offering the prayers, including prayers of blessing, to couples in same-sex marriages the bishops, with the support of the Legal Office, offered a novel and contentious argument distinguishing holy matrimony from civil same-sex marriages. The relationship between civil marriage and holy matrimony after the introduction of same-sex marriage was not a question covered within LLF although it produced an invaluable “Brief History of Marriage Law” by Professor Julian Rivers. The answer now being offered represents a complete reversal of all previous legal and theological statements including in the Church of England’s successful case defending the refusal of Bishop Inwood, Acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, to give a licence to Jeremy Pemberton who was in a civil same-sex marriage. There, as set out in the original employment tribunal judgment of October 2015, the employment appeal tribunal judgment of December 2016 and the Court of Appeal Decision in March 2018, a key argument advanced was that the bishops’ actions were necessary because to be in a same-sex civil marriage was incompatible with the doctrine of the Church of England in relation to marriage.

Read it all.

The Prayers of Love and Faith put the practical cart before the theological horse. What questions do we first need to ask about the pattern of holy life God calls us to before we can discuss the Prayers with any coherence? @theologyethics1 @simonsarmiento https://t.co/i3nHup7SH1

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) June 2, 2023

2. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BIBLE; IT’S CLARITY, AUTHORITY AND SUFFICIENCY GIVE US CONFIDENCE IN WHAT WE BELIEVE AS ANGLICANS.

This is clear from the section on “The Authority of God’s word”:

“The current divisions in the Anglican Communion have been caused by radical departures from the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some within the Communion have been taken captive by hollow and deceptive philosophies of this world (Colossians 2:8). Such a failure to hear and heed God’s Word undermines the mission of the church as a whole.

The Bible is God’s Word written, breathed out by God as it was written by his faithful messengers (2 Timothy 3:16). It carries God’s own authority, is its own interpreter, and it does not need to be supplemented, nor can it ever be overturned by human wisdom.

God’s good Word is the rule of our lives as disciples of Jesus and is the final authority in the church.” (Emphasis added)

Here we see the Kigali Statement echoing, in different words, the same assertion as the Global South Section 1.6 on the sufficiency of God’s Word written in its plain and canonical sense, and the rejection of any “hermeneutics of skepticism,” which Anglican revisionists have brought to the text of scripture.  The Kigali Statement goes on to say of the Bible:

“It grounds, energises and directs our mission in the world. The fellowship we enjoy with our risen and ascended Lord is nourished as we trust God’s Word, obey it and encourage each other to allow it to shape each area of our lives.”

Gafcon continues to stand for the Bible as the very foundation upon which Anglicans have confidence to believe what we believe, to have fellowship with Jesus himself, and to find “energy and direction” for all we do! Therefore, the crisis in the Anglican Communion is not about “differences of opinion” or “secondary matters” of human sexuality.  The crisis is about the very basis upon which the Church is constituted, especially when the plain reading of the text is ignored:

“This fellowship is broken when we turn aside from God’s Word or attempt to reinterpret it in any way that overturns the plain reading of the text in its canonical context and so deny its truthfulness, clarity, sufficiency, and thereby its authority (Jerusalem Declaration #2).”

In other words, what is ultimately at stake here is what we have proclaimed for the last 25 years: the truthfulness, clarity, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible.  For this reason, it is impossible to embrace “pluriform truth” as the Archbishop of Canterbury did at the recent Lambeth Conference 2022. For this reason, GAFCON rejects the Canterbury led communion narrative of “walking together in good disagreement” as the basis for fellowship, much less Communion:

“We reject the claim that two contradictory positions can both be valid in matters affecting salvation.  We cannot ‘walk together’ in good disagreement with those who have deliberately chosen to walk away from the ‘faith once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3).  The people of God ‘walk in his ways’, ‘walk in the truth’, and ‘walk in the light’, all of which require that we do not walk in Christian fellowship with those in darkness (Deuteronomy 8:6; 2 John 4; 1 John 1:7).”

Read it all.

Canon Phil takes an in-depth walk through of 8 major take-aways from the @gafconference Kigali Commitment released today. https://t.co/BzhWk6VJnh

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) April 21, 2023