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

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

The Church Times has seen a letter sent on Wednesday by a group of 22 bishops — including nine diocesans — who have written to their colleagues to welcome the letter from the “alliance of network leaders” and to support its call for the Prayers of Love and Faith to be returned to the Synod under Canon B2.

It is understood, however, that a larger group of bishops, believed to number more than 40, have warned against subjecting the prayers to a long, uncertain, and, they argue, unnecessary synodical process. Instead, they call for the prayers to be approved by the Archbishops under Canon B4.2.

(Canon B4.2 states: “The archbishops may approve forms of service for use . . . on occasions for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B2 or by the Convocations under this Canon, being forms of service which in both words and order are in their opinion reverent and seemly and are neither contrary to nor indicative of any departure from the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.”)

The larger group is also thought to suggest that, if a route is taken that delays the use of blessings, some diocesan bishops might break ranks and commend the prayers for immediate use.

Read it all (registration or subscription).

The Church Times has seen a letter sent on Wednesday by a group of 22 bishops — including nine diocesans — who have written to their colleagues to support calls for the Prayers of Love and Faith to be returned to the Synod under Canon B2https://t.co/A5CRZlViBI

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) July 7, 2023

As expected, no substantial developments to the Church’s Living in Love and Faith (LLF) programme will be debated at July’s meeting of the General Synod. Bishops have urged patience, saying that they are “on track” to present concrete proposals in November.

Draft Prayers of Love and Faith, which clerics will be at liberty to use to bless same-sex couples in church, were approved in principle at the February Synod (News, 9 February). A revised version will be presented to the Synod next month when it meets in York (7-11 July).

On Thursday afternoon, among the published documents for the July sessions, was an “update” on the implementation of the LLF process.

It reported that, over the past three months, bishops have been meeting with three “implementation groups”, each focused on a different branch of work: revising the prayers; devising updated pastoral guidance for priests and lay readers; and setting out what measures should be put in place for those who oppose the introduction of same-sex blessings (News, 3 May). Only on the first of these issues is something ready to be set before Synod members in July.

Read it all.

As expected, no substantial developments to the Church’s Living in Love and Faith (LLF) programme will be debated at July’s meeting of the General Synod. Bishops have urged patience, saying that they are “on track” to present concrete proposals in Novemberhttps://t.co/B2aCdDe6wu

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 23, 2023

Jesus’ view of marriage as between a man and a woman was entirely typical of first-century Judaism, and consistent with the rest of Scripture. All ancient cultures (and many modern ones) recognised that a small minority of the population were different, in having a settled attraction to those of the same sex. In the ancient world, marriage and procreation were seen as key to the survival of society, so such people could be perceived as a threat, but there was often some sort of provision made for them. The Old Testament is unique amongst Ancient Near Eastern texts in not doing so—on the basis of God’s creation of male and female as the basis for sexual relationships. That is why all mainstream, critical scholars agree that the biblical texts and the teaching of Jesus is clear and consistent—though many of them think it is wrong.

Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct (Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible”).

The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says?  I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good (Luke Timothy Johnson).

It is common to hear people claim ‘Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’. But he did not need to—just as he did not need to say anything about incest, or other specific aspects of sexual immorality, since there was a clear consensus in Judaism on these questions, rooted in the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus. Jesus was concerned about issues of sexual immorality, and his reference to porneia would have been heard by anyone listening to him as including same-sex sex within that category of immorality.

Read it all.

This is a good article from Ian Paul explaining why there's no 'agree to disagree' really possible on this debate. https://t.co/mn7buCOGPf

— Trevin Wax (@TrevinWax) June 26, 2023

We, in Gafcon and GSFA had earlier declared unequivocally that we no longer recognise the Archbishop of Canterbury as the head, leader or spokesperson of the Anglican Communion. He has lost every power and authority to dictate to or advise other Primates and Provinces of the Communion who oversee 85% of the Global Communion. It is pertinent to remind Archbishop Welby that Africa is no longer a colony of the ‘British Empire,’ and the Church of England has no jurisdiction over the Anglican Provinces on the continent of Africa. As such, he should stop meddling with the internal affairs of the Anglicans on the continent of Africa.

We stand together in our commitment to the Bible and the essence of the Christian faith. We will stand together with Christ and shall resist all attempts to pollute our faith. The part of Lambeth Resolution I.10 which enjoins non-discrimination against persons who experience or practice homosexuality is not an endorsement of the sinful act, but a call for a normal pastoral approach and the responsibility of Church ministers to offer care and counsel to sinners of all categories.

Therefore, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NKJV).

Read it all.

https://t.co/V4K8FFW9l7

— Gafcon (@GafconGBE) June 14, 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

A group of ten clerics in the the City deanery of the diocese of London have announced their decision to establish an alternative “deanery chapter”, in protest at the decision to allow church blessings for same-sex couples.

In a video released on YouTube on Thursday, the Senior Minister of St Nicholas’s Cole Abbey, the Revd Chris Fishlock, and the Guild Vicar of St Botolph’s without Aldersgate, the Revd Phil Martin, outline plans for a new “City Deanery Chapter”.

“We hope that what we’re doing is, among other things, a helpful demonstration of the kind of structural differentiation which will be needed for many of us within the Church of England,” Mr Martin says on the video.

A statement from the diocese on Thursday afternoon described the initiative as a “unilateral move” with “no legal substance”.

Read it all (registration or subscription).

(Church Times) Ten London clergy launch differentiated deanery chapter over the recent controversial+schismatic decision to bless same-sex unions https://t.co/FIKm6TlKFP #anglican #parishministry #marriage #religion #ethics #scripture #uk

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) March 31, 2023

The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), a group comprising 14 organisations, has released a “declaration” outlining why they feel “compelled to resist” moves to bless same-sex couples.

A statement published on a new website, declaration.ceec.info, includes an apology for “the times we have failed and continue to fail to love [LGBTQ+ people] as God loves them”.

The statement continues: “Sadly, however, we cannot accept central features of the bishops’ proposed way forward.” The move to bless same-sex couples, and to allow priests to be in same-sex marriages, “represents a departure from the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness”.

The CEEC is inviting those who agree with the declaration to register their support on the website, which also includes a range of “supporting resources” about the CEEC’s position.

Read it all.

Evangelical group calls for declarations of resistance to same-sex blessings https://t.co/jsDBNWW21z

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 29, 2023

William Taylor says: ‘The bishops of the Church of England have walked away from us.’ St Helen’s annual clergy review will now be led by Archbishop Foley Beach of the worldwide orthodox Anglican grouping, GAFCON.

Meanwhile, Richard Moy, Resource Church Lead at ‘Christ Church W4,’ says of the meeting between 180 clergy and their London diocese bishops: ‘It was extraordinary. The meeting was called with expectations that [just] the “usual suspects” would turn up but had to be relocated when it was clear that there were more than a couple of dozen people coming.’

Moy says the bishops were told that the whole leadership of one charismatic church plant had told their minister: ‘Of course we’re leaving the C of E.’ This was echoed by four or five other charismatic churches with Global Majority Heritage congregations from across several networks.

A clergyman believed to be the longest serving in the room said he had been ordained 47 years, in the diocese for 40 years and that there had always been rogue or renegade bishops. However, this was the first time that the House of Bishops had collectively gone against the majority view of the Anglican Communion, Anglican doctrine and Biblical authority, Moy reports. At this, those present erupted into ‘rousing applause’ after which the bishops were reported to look as though they were in ‘shell shock’.

Read it all.

The head of the Evangelical Alliance, Gavin Calver, believes the organisation may see a growth in membership as the Church of England moves ahead with divisive plans to bless same-sex couples.

In an interview for the Religion and Media Centre’s Big Interview podcast, Calver said it was “too early” for the EA to tell Anglican evangelical congregations what to do because the Church of England is still in the process of formulating new pastoral guidance on the blessings.

However, he said that the EA was ready to be a place of support and a “port in a storm” for evangelical congregations dismayed over the Church of England’s direction of travel.

“We’ll probably find that a number of Anglican churches join the Evangelical Alliance, because it’s actually a time where they want to be in unity with wider evangelicals, as well as continuing in their space, which is challenging,” he said

Read it all.

From here:

The meeting appraised and reviewed the outcomes of the Living in Love and Faith debate and motion passed at General Synod in February and considered the scope of work required between now and the next General Synod in July 2023.

The Next Steps Group then considered and refined the agenda of the forthcoming College of Bishops meeting at the end of March. They noted that it will be important for the bishops to listen to the feedback from General Synod, the response of the wider church to the decisions made, as well as to each other’s reflections before moving on to the consider how the work of drafting the Pastoral Guidance, providing pastoral reassurance, refining the Prayers of Love and Faith and establishing the Pastoral Consultative Group will be taken forward.

With the remit of the Next Steps group now having reached its conclusion, the bishops went on to discuss the necessary phases of work after the March College of Bishops and the composition of the working groups that will take forward the work that will need to be done for the July Synod.

The meeting ended in prayer.

Presently, the Gafcon Primates are meeting regularly with the Primates of The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches and other Orthodox Primates across the world to discern the path forward. The outcome of these meetings will affect the majority of the 85 million Anglicans worldwide.

Gafcon will not be commenting on the content of these meetings while they are ongoing but will be releasing a statement at the end of the upcoming GAFCON IV Conference to be held from 17-21 April in Kigali, Rwanda.

Read it all.

GAFCON reports discussions underway among the primates over the future shape of the churchhttps://t.co/fOUrGgHNcR pic.twitter.com/IY54ZV1Jqd

— Anglican Ink (@anglicanink) March 9, 2023

Watch it all.

“With the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury forfeiting their leadership role,” they said, Anglicanism’s “orthodox” primates across the global communion will meet to “work out the shape and nature of our common life together” because “for us, and perhaps by his own reported self-exclusion, the present Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer the … Chair of the Primates’ Meeting by virtue of his position.”

Uganda Archbishop Stephen Samuel Kaziimba Mugalu stressed that there will be no Anglican compromise this time around.

“The only significant difference between a wedding and a service of ‘blessing’ is the terminology used,” he said in a public statement. “The Church of England insists it is not changing its doctrine of marriage. But, in practice, they are doing precisely that. …

“But, what I want you to know is that if it looks like a wedding, and sounds like a wedding … it IS a wedding.”

Read it all.

George Orwell coined the term ‘doublethink’ to describe the flexibility of mind required to live and survive in the society described in the novel 1984. Amongst its many traits, doublethink required the ability “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic …” The book frequently quotes these examples: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and 2 + 2 = 5.

The Anglican world has just received its own example of doublethink (and doublespeak) in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s opening address to the Anglican Consultative Council. Speaking in Ghana less than a week after General Synod’s decision to approve prayers of blessing on sexual relationships outside marriage, Archbishop Justin Welby stated, “When I speak of the impact that actions by the Church of England will have on those abroad in the Anglican Communion, those concerns are dismissed by many. Not all, but by many in the General Synod.”

Read it all.

Thirdly, and most fundamentally of all, Bishop Christopher [Cocksworth] admits that the cart was effectively put before the horse. Speaking of the “Pastoral Guidance” the bishops are supposed to be now producing in relation to Prayers of Love and Faith, he writes: “We promised pastoral guidelines on the practical outworking of the provision, with all their complex legal and theological questions, at a later point, rather than offering them alongside the liturgical provision. The result was that the response and prayers raised more questions than they answered…”

In other words, the Bishops came up with the prayers first rather than the theology. But how can you write prayers if you are not sure what the underlying theology is? Not only is it putting the cart before the horse, but arguably the horse has bolted and it is too late to shut the stable door as no-one knows where the stable is anyway. Don’t explore that mixed metaphor too closely but you get the idea…

In other words, the Bishops came up with the prayers first rather than the theology. But how can you write prayers if you are not sure what the underlying theology is? Not only is it putting the cart before the horse, but arguably the horse has bolted and it is too late to shut the stable door as no-one knows where the stable is anyway. Don’t explore that mixed metaphor too closely but you get the idea…

The bishop admits things have been done in the wrong order elsewhere when he lists some of the theological questions still to be answered by the bishops. He says these include: “Is the provision genuinely consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England?” (yes, you read that right!) and “What [are the draft prayers] saying or implying about the permissibility or otherwise of sexual intimacy in relationships of the same sex, and in opposite sex relationships that the Church does not recognize as marriage, and what is its theological case?” So the prayers were written before the answers to the key theological questions on which they rest were considered.

Read it all.

Good grief begins with honest reflection, however difficult.https://t.co/voCNxVJRmM

— Will Briggs (@WillBriggs) February 27, 2023

PRESS STATEMENT
February 20, 2023

With great sorrow at the recent decision of the Church of England’s General Synod to legitimise and incorporate into the Church’s liturgy the blessing of same sex unions, ten Primates of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) met virtually on 13 Feb 2023 under the chairmanship of Archbishop Justin Badi (Chairman of GSFA & Primate of South Sudan) to discuss our response.

The panel of Primates agreed on the following resolutions which it now commends to the orthodox provinces and dioceses who are part of her Fellowship for the respective Primate & Province to consider and deliberate on.

1. As the Church of England has departed from the historic faith passed down from the Apostles by this innovation in the liturgies of the Church and her pastoral practice (contravening her own Canon A5), she has disqualified herself from leading the Communion as the historic “Mother” Church. Indeed, the Church of England has chosen to break communion with those provinces who remain faithful to the historic biblical faith expressed in the Anglican formularies (the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and the Book of Homilies) and applied to the matter of marriage and sexuality in Lambeth Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

2. As much as the GSFA Primates also want to keep the unity of the visible Church and the fabric of the Anglican Communion, our calling to be ‘a holy remnant’ does not allow us be “in communion” with those provinces that have departed from the historic faith and taken the path of false teaching. This breaks our hearts and we pray for the revisionist provinces to return to ‘the faith once delivered’ (Jude 3) and to us.

3. The GSFA is no longer able to recognise the present Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Hon & Most Revd Justin Welby, as the “first among equals” Leader of the global Communion. He has sadly led his House of Bishops to make the recommendations that undergirded the General Synod Motion on ‘Living in Love & Faith,’ knowing that they run contrary to the faith & order of the orthodox provinces in the Communion whose people constitute the majority in the global flock. We pray that our withdrawal of support for him to lead the whole Communion is received by him as an admonishment in love.

4. With the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury forfeiting their leadership role of the global Communion, GSFA Primates will expeditiously meet, consult and work with other orthodox Primates in the Anglican Church across the nations to re-set the Communion on its biblical foundation. We look forward to collaborating with Primates and bishops in the GAFCON movement and other orthodox Anglican groupings to work out the shape and nature of our common life together and how we are to keep the priority of proclaiming and witnessing to the gospel of Jesus Christ in the world foremost in our life as God’s people. Together with other orthodox Primates, we will seek to address the leadership crisis that has arisen because for us, and perhaps by his own reported self-exclusion, the present Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer the ‘leader’ of the Communion and no longer the Chair of the Primates’ Meeting by virtue of his position.

5. GSFA Primates will carefully work with other orthodox Primates to provide Primatial and episcopal oversight to orthodox dioceses and networks of Anglican churches who indicate their need and who consult with us. This is to ensure that the faithful all across the worldwide Anglican Church but who find themselves in revisionistvii Provinces receive the pastoral oversight, guidance and care of a global, connectional Church which the Anglican Communion is meant to be.

6. Given this action by the Church of England’s General Synod, we believe it is no longer possible to continue in the way the Communion is. We do not accept the view that we can still “walk together” with the revisionist provinces as prescribed by the Anglican Communion Office and in the exploratory way proposed by IASCUFO (Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith & Order) at the recent Anglican Consultative Council (ACC)-18 meeting.

7. GSFA Primates are joint-stewards together with other orthodox Primates of the Anglican Communion, defined by its Formularies and that has been birthed and sustained by God through the centuries. We are accountable to the whole and to each other for the historic Christian faith and its practice in our autonomous Churches. The Church of England is the “historic first” province, but now that it has departed from the historic faith the responsibility falls to the remaining orthodox Primates. We will not walk away from the Communion that has so richly blessed us and for whose faithfulness to God and His word our forebears have paid a costly price. What has happened in the Church of England has only served to strengthen our resolve to work together to re-set the Communion, and to ensure that the re-set Communion is marked by reform and renewal. Only then will the Anglican Church as a whole be able to be God’s channel of light and transformation in a dark and broken world. Only then will we be able to live out our witness as part of God’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

To this end, GSFA will work humbly, boldly and charitably with other orthodox parts of the global Anglican Church. In our own Provinces, we will repent of the ways in which we ourselves fail to keep the covenant God has given us in Christ Jesus. We will ask God to purify and build up our churches so that we can authentically and passionately take the Gospel out to our respective nations and assigned fields.

i The GSFA is currently composed of 14 Provinces from a larger grouping of 25 Global South provinces. These 14 provinces plus one diocese have either signed on to be members of GSFA via assent to its Covenantal Structure (Cairo, 2019) or given written indication that a process to pursue GSFA membership has begun in their province. (See www.thegsfa.org)

ii ‘Orthodox’ provinces are those which hold to the plain and authoritative teaching of holy Scripture as historically understood, and correspondingly their ‘Faith & Order’ is consistent with what the Scriptures as a whole teach.

iii ‘The Church of England’s General Synod has welcomed proposals which would enable same-sex couples to come to church after a civil marriage or civil partnership to give thanks, dedicate their relationship to God and receive God’s blessing.’ (https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/prayers-gods-blessing-same-sex-couples-take-step-forward-after-synod)

iv Canon A5 : ‘The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.’

v Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality states that “while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation …” The Resolution also states that the Lambeth Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”

vi The ‘holy remnant’ in Scripture refers to that segment among God’s people who remain faithful to God’s covenant against wind and tide by trusting and obeying God’s word and keeping to God’s standard of right and wrong. They do so in spite of sections of the wider community they belong to conforming to the world around them and disobeying the revealed word of God.

vii ‘Revisionist’ provinces are those who take a liberal view on the interpretation of holy Scripture and introduce new and innovative doctrines that do not agree with the plain teaching of Scripture as historically understood by the Church. In their ‘faith & order,’ revisionist provinces and dioceses move increasingly away from the bounds of Scripture .

And with a renewed and reset Communion, we will be able to join hands in mission and ministry across the nations to be a bright, collective light in the midst of the major challenges of our time. This is what we in GSFA are looking forward to as we prepare for our first GSFA Assembly under our Covenantal Structure (Cairo, 2019) , which will be from 28th-31st May 2024 in Cairo.

To God be the glory as a new light mercifully dawns on His Church in the midst of the growing darkness. Isaiah 60:1-3.

__________________________________________________________________

This Statement is endorsed by the following GSFA Primates

1. Archbishop Justin Badi ( Primate of South Sudan & Chair of GSFA )

2. Archbishop Hector (Tito) Zavala ( Primate of Chile & Vice-Chair of GSFA )

3. Archbishop James Wong ( Primate of Indian Ocean , GSFA Steering Committee member )

4. Archbishop Titre Ande ( Primate of Congo , GSFA Steering Committee member)

5. Archbishop Stephen Than ( Primate of Myanmar , GSFA Steering Committee member)

6. Archbishop Foley Beach ( Primate of North America, GSFA Steering Committee member )

7. Archbishop Samuel Mankhin ( Primate of Bangladesh , GSFA Steering Committee member )

8. Archbishop Stephen Kaziimba ( Primate of Uganda )

9. Archbishop Ezekiel Kondo ( Primate of Sudan )

10. Archbishop Samy Shehata ( Primate of Alexandria )

11. Archbishop Miguel Uchoa Cavalcanti ( Primate of Anglican Church in Brazil )

12. Archbishop Leonard Dawea ( Primate of Melanesia )

But what does this mean in practice? Does Paul’s teaching mean that we are being unkind to gay people and denying them ‘fulness of life’? We need to remember three things in reflecting on this. First, to love someone is (according to Aquinas) to will the best for them. If God has revealed his best pattern of living for humanity, and if that best plan is that that marriage is between one man and one woman, and sexual intimacy belongs within that, then this is the pattern we need to live by and call others to. It was, after all, Jesus who was himself single and celibate who both lived out and offered us this life in all its fulness.

Secondly, we need to listen carefully to the testimony of those who have indeed found it the way of life. In my report on the February 2023 meeting of Synod, I quoted the speech from Paul Chamberlain:

Synod colleagues, I am a gay man who holds to the historic teaching of the church on marriage and sex. Despite my desires for sexual intimacy with other men, I have sought to fashion my life, and forge my relationships according to that teaching. This has not been easy. In my 20s, I met a guy. I really wanted a relationship with him. But I believed, and believe, that the teaching of scripture is clear. Not once have I regretted the decision not to pursue that relationship.

Thirdly, we need to make this teaching possible by the way we live as the people of God. We need to recognise the two honoured patterns of life—marriage and celibate singleness—and support both. We need to encourage and support those who are married, without idolising marriage and pretending it holds no challenges. We need to encourage and support those who are single, without treating them as second best. And we need to live as the family of God, willing to invest in deep friendships, welcoming others into our homes, so that it is this fellowship, and not merely sex and marriage, which is the end of loneliness.

Read it all.

New post: Did Paul prohibit all forms of same-sex sexual relations? https://t.co/xYrPYnoTJp

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) February 16, 2023