From there:

The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Kanishka Raffel, has described the decision of the Church of England General Synod to offer prayers of blessing to couples in same-sex marriages and civil partnerships as a rejection of biblical teaching.

“In adopting these proposals, the UK General Synod has rejected the clear teaching of Scripture that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is sin.” the Archbishop said.

Archbishop Raffel cited the Global Anglican Fellowship (Gafcon) and the Global South Fellowship, two international groups which he said, “not only represent the vast majority of the world’s Anglicans, but also the historic, universal and apostolic teaching of the bible.”

“Last year, when the 24 diocesan bishops of the Australian General Synod failed to affirm the bible’s teaching on marriage and sexuality, I said that they had left the Australian Anglican Church in a ‘perilous’ state. Today, statements from both Gafcon and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans have made the same assessment of the impact of the Church of England’s decision on the Anglican Communion. I agree with that assessment.”

“Nevertheless, it is reason for thanksgiving that where some Anglican provinces have departed from Scripture’s teaching in these matters, faithful brothers and sisters have stood for the trustworthiness, goodness and authority of Scripture. This was certainly true in the UK General Synod debate.”

“It is the opposite of loving care for people to deny, distort or downplay the life-giving truth of Scripture on matters of vital importance to understanding ourselves and God’s good plans for our lives, including matters of human sexuality and marriage. We must lament the decision of the Church of England General Synod.”

“God’s people are called to honour all people, and humbly, prayerfully and faithfully to hold out to all, the teaching of Jesus as words of eternal life. With God’s help, we will continue to do so.”

Kanishka Raffel
Archbishop of Sydney
February 10, 2023

BREAKING: wonderful news. Kanishka Raffel to be next Anglican Archbishop of Sydney pic.twitter.com/0RwiT6VVGa

— Michael Kellahan (@michaelkellahan) May 6, 2021

It is not because God intends his human creatures to be ignorant of his will in these areas that the current disagreement exists. The current disagreement exists because some members of the Church of England, including its bishops, under the influence of contemporary culture, have decided to reject, in whole or in part, the orthodox teaching of the Church of England and the divine revelation in nature and Scripture that it reflects.

Contrary to what the Bishop of London suggests, responding to this situation by suggesting that we are uncertain about God’s revealed will is not a matter of humility but rather of pride, pride in thinking that our doubts about what God has said have any standing in the matter. We may subjectively dislike what God has said, but true Christian humility lies in accepting what God has said and acting upon it anyway. To do otherwise is to reject God’s wisdom and to rebel against God’s sovereign authority.

It is also pure sophistry to suggest that we know what nature, Scripture and tradition say, but it is unclear what this means in today’s society. It means what it has always meant, either marriage and sexual fidelity within marriage, or sexual abstinence. This was true in the sexually permissive society of the first century Roman Empire and it remains equally true today.

All this being the case, the proper way forward for the Church of England is not to try to find a way to ‘live with our disagreements’ over human sexuality in a civilised manner. The proper way forward is for it to submit to what God has revealed and to call on those rejecting what God has revealed in their teaching or behaviour to cease to do so.

Read it all.

Martin Davie dissects the Bishop of London's speech on Living in Love and Faithhttps://t.co/51dBcc26o7 pic.twitter.com/OIT0fnf1aE

— Anglican Ink (@anglicanink) February 8, 2023

From there:

Good morning, our Media Evangelists, and Praise God from Whom all Blessings Flow!

I have invited you here today to update you and, through you, all our Christians here in Uganda about some recent decisions the Church of England has made. I want to explain them very well to all of us and also explain the Church of Uganda’s position.

The Church of England’s Decision

The General Synod of the Church of England (their top governing body, like our Provincial Assembly) sat yesterday and passed several resolutions that are of great concern to us in Uganda. They have decided to allow clergy to preside at Blessings of Same-sex Unions and have approved supplemental prayers and liturgies for such occasions.

The Church of England is very good at making contradictory statements and expecting everyone to believe both can be true at the same time. That’s what they have done with this decision.

On the one hand, they say that the Church of England has not changed its doctrine of marriage, namely that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman.

On the other hand, they are giving clergy permission to preside at services of Blessing for same-sex unions, especially for gay couples who are already considered “married” by the British government. In other words, a gay couple joined together in a civil marriage would then go to the church to receive prayers of blessing.

The only significant difference between a wedding and a service of “blessing” is the terminology used.

The Church of England insists it is not changing its doctrine of marriage. But, in practice, they are doing precisely that. You may read various articles, opinions, and commentaries on this decision that try to justify its action.

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

The Church of Uganda’s Position

1. Now, I want to talk about the position of the Church of Uganda. There have been very many questions about it in light of this terrible decision of the Church of England.First, from the first page of the Bible in the book of Genesis to the last page of the Bible in the book of Revelation, it is clear that God’s design for human flourishing is that we are part of a family – a family that is defined as one man and one woman united in holy matrimony for life and, God willing, a union that produces children. God’s Word has said that the only context for sexual relationships is in the context of a marriage of one man and one woman.

2. Because lifelong, exclusive marriage between one man and one woman is the only context for sexual relationships, the Bible calls any other kind of sexual relationship a sin. Whether it is adultery, or fornication, or polygamy, or homosexual relationships. They are all sin and they all separate us from God.

a. That means sleeping with your girlfriend or your boyfriend before marriage is a sin.

b. That means that if you are married and have a “side dish,” that is a sin.

c. That means that if you take a second or third wife that is a sin.

d. That means if you engage in homosexual or same-sex sexual relationships, that is a sin.

Yes, God can forgive you, but it requires that you come before God, confess that you have done wrong, and make a commitment to change your way of life – in other words, to repent – and walk in God’s ways.

3. Third. When Jesus was questioned about a woman caught in adultery, he told her to “Go, and sin no more.”

There is a lot of sexual sin in Uganda. I know that, and you know that. Nevertheless, we haven’t changed our message. Our message is the message of the Bible, which is, “Go, and sin no more.”

The Church of England, on the other hand, has now departed from the Bible and their new message is the opposite message of the Bible. They are now saying, “Go, and sin some more.”

They are even offering to bless that sin.

That is wrong.

Rev. Dr. Stephen Samuel Kaziimba Mugalu has said the Church of Uganda still considers homosexual relationships sinful thus it won’t take the path of the Church of England which has accepted to bless same sex marriages.

What do you make of the Archbishop’s thoughts? | #MazimaPoll pic.twitter.com/lodIM9fM88

— Mazima News (@mazimaug) February 10, 2023

From there:

We are deeply saddened and profoundly grieved that General Synod has given a ‘green light’ to the proposals put forward by the House of Bishops. The Church of England now appears set on a course of action that rejects our historic and biblical understanding of sex and marriage, by departing from the apostolic faith we are called to uphold. This decision will be extremely distressing for evangelicals in this country today, as they consider the impact of the decision on their ministry and as they continue to contend for Jesus in their local contexts.

This seems to us to be a lose-lose position for everyone in the Church of England. Those who wanted more change will continue to ask and push for greater change. Those of us who have been trying to uphold the historic and biblical understanding of marriage and singleness say change has gone too far. This decision has settled nothing and has only served to deepen divisions and cause deeper hurt.

We will continue to work alongside evangelicals across the country, who today share our sense of great sadness and dismay, to contend for biblical faithfulness and to live lives that Jesus has called us to. We are grateful that several speakers noted the need for some kind of settlement, though this would need to be without theological compromise. We believe that putting in place new imaginative structures, ‘good differentiation’, is the only way we are going to be able to reach a settled outcome, that maintains the highest degree of unity possible within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

For me, and many other ‘orthodox’ Anglicans in the chamber, one of the most heartening things about the debate was the quality of the contributions from those upholding the current doctrine. I append two at the end of this article. I do think there was a significant contrast with the speeches in support of the motion and rejecting the amendments. A large number of them focussed on the feelings of those affected, especially gay clergy who cannot express their emotional and sexual love as they would wish according to current doctrine. There is no doubt that these feelings need to be attended to—but the question is whether this forms the basis for the Church to determine its understanding of the teaching of Jesus. Other speeches lifted proof texts from Scripture in some bizarre ways—claiming that Jesus’ offer of ‘fulness of life’ must mean that no-one should be denied a sexual relationship, or that Paul’s acceptance of diverse approaches to food meant we could have the same approach to sex and marriage, even though Paul himself did not—or that Gal 3.28 implies that sex differences no longer exist. It is hard to see how any of these arguments could form a part of the bishops’ theological rationale for the Prayers.

One theme mentioned several times was the idea that not being able to marry would consign a person to a lifetime of loneliness. It was rather odd hearing those who reject the doctrine of the Church elevating marriage to such a pinnacle, as if it was the solution to all our problems—and very good to hear several single people saying that this was not true.

Where does this all leave the process and what lies ahead for the House of Bishops? It seems to me that there is more work to do than ever before—and both Synod Questions and the debate has exposed this more starkly than ever. The challenges include:

1. How has the relation of sex and marriage been understood in previous statements?
2. On what grounds could these consistent statements be changed or rejected?
3. How does the Church of England engage with ecumenical statements, especially from the Roman Catholic Church?
4. What are the implications for the Communion?
5. What impact will the perception of what is being proposed have on the Church itself—on mission, church planting, plans for growth, clergy deployment and morale, and our work with young people?
6. If these prayers are commended for use in a church service, in what sense is that not liturgical provision? So how can we avoid needing a two-thirds majority in Synod for their approval?
7. Where did the claimed distinction between marriage and Holy Matrimony come from? How can that be sustained in the light of contrary evidence from all previous statements?
8. Why were the proposals brought under Canon B5 (local use and decision) rather than Canon B2 (national approval), against the obvious legal conclusion, when these are being offered national and commended by the House of Bishops?
9. How could the Pastoral Guidelines allow clergy to enter same-sex marriages, if the doctrine of the Church remains unchanged and ordination vows commit clergy to belief, uphold, teach, and pattern this doctrine in their own lives? How can their be any room for manoeuvre here?
10. In addition, what comments and feedback were given by members of Synod in their reflections, and what difference will that make?
11. In what context will the prayers be offered, with what rubric and introduction?
12. How can all this be squared with the consistent teaching of Scripture? This cannot be lightly set aside, since Canon A5 delineates our doctrine as being ‘rooted in the Scriptures’, and Article XX of the XXXIX Articles states that ‘it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written.’

If this is any kind of ‘victory’ for those who wanted to moved forward, it looks very much like a Pyrrhic victory. ‘If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined’ (Plutarch’s account of Pyrrhus of Epirus).

The motion was passed, with a significant addition which explicitly limits the scope for manoeuvre, so the work will continue. But I think the cost has been immense damage to the reputation and standing of Justin Welby, the final nail in the coffin of the Anglican Communion, damage to ecumenical relations, a further loss of confidence in the leadership of bishops within the Church, and the first signs of fracture at local and diocesans levels. And for what gain?

Read it all.

Assist us, O God, to love one another as sisters and brothers, and to balance discipline with love and rules with compassion, according to the example shown by thy servant Scholastica; for the sake of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be all honor and glory, now and for ever. Amen.

Today's the feast of St Scholastica, twin sister of St Benedict and a patron saint of books and reading. She's on the early 16th Century screen at Wiggenhall St Mary the Virgin, Norfolk. She doesn't appear on many East Anglian screens.

WSMV: https://t.co/8WH5rHAbTN pic.twitter.com/Q1iukBOU7I

— Simon Knott (@last_of_england) February 10, 2023

Lord, if our hearts be hard, or choked with tares, send, we pray thee, thine angels, even if it be thine angel of sorrow, to plough and harrow and cleanse the unfruitful ground; for thy mercy’s sake.

—Daily Prayer, Eric Milner-White and G. W. Briggs, eds. (London: Penguin Books 1959 edition of the 1941 original)

Morning plus Oxford is a winning combo, isn’t it? pic.twitter.com/B0MZNolPP2

— William Whitehead (@Clerkenwill) February 10, 2023

O Lord, my God, I call for help by day;
I cry out in the night before thee.
Let my prayer come before thee,
incline thy ear to my cry!

–Psalm 88:1-2

Good morning Cape Cod! Today’s enchanting sunrise from Rock Harbor, Orleans, Massachusetts. #capecod #StormHour #sunrise pic.twitter.com/gnSFb7Jix6

— Darius Aniunas (@dariusaniunas) February 10, 2023