CofE: House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage

39 comments on “CofE: House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage”

1. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

   February 15, 2014 at 1:34 pm

   It is perhaps worth considering the Bishops’ Valentine’s Night Statement in the light of the teaching of Lambeth Conference Resolution 1:10, which the Bishops rightly remind us is the teaching of the Communion, and to consider whether it measures up:

   Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 ‘Human Sexuality’
   This Conference:

   – commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality;
   – in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
   – recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God’s transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We
   commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
   – while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
   – cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
   – requests the Primates and the ACC to establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us;
   – notes the significance of the Kuala Lumpur Statement on Human Sexuality and the concerns expressed in resolutions IV.26, V.1, V.10, V.23 and V.35 on the authority of Scripture in matters of marriage and sexuality and asks the Primates and the ACC to include them in their monitoring process

   1. What is the effect of this Pastoral Statement?

   This appears to hinge on the meaning of Clause 28:

   The Church of England has a long tradition of tolerating conscientious dissent and of seeking to avoid drawing lines too firmly, not least when an issue is one where the people of God are seeking to discern the mind of Christ in a fast changing context. Nevertheless at ordination clergy undertake to ‘accept and minister the discipline of this Church, and respect authority duly exercised within it.’ We urge all clergy to act consistently with that undertaking.

   Firstly one has to ask why is the HOB mentioning toleration of dissent, not drawing clear lines, and to say that ‘an issue is one where the people of God are seeking to discern the mind of Christ in a fast changing context’? Well presumably the latter because when all is said and done and with clear authority from Lambeth 1:10 on the teaching of the Communion to which the Church of England has signed up, the HOB are still unwilling to acknowledge that it is binding upon them in all cases and furthermore that there are cases where dissent or not sticking to clear lines will not be tolerated?

   Then the HOB go on to ‘urge’ compliance by reminding clergy of their oaths of obedience.

   It is hard to know from the wording just what conclusion clergy should draw. Is disobedience something which will lead to clergy discipline? Or is it something they should voluntarily keep to with no consequences if they do not follow the Bishops’ guidance?

   In other words, does the whole of the guidance to which clause 28 refers have any teeth whatever? Everything else considered below depends upon what the answer to that is, and so the question remains why has this been left so unclear?

   2. Publicly Celebrating and Blessing Same Sex Marriages and Civil Unions

   With civil law same sex marriage being brought in against the Church’s advice, the bishops have rightly given guidance on this. Lambeth 1:10 “upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage”, rejects “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions”.

   The Bishops’ Statement:
   – affirms “same sex weddings in church will not be possible” [Clause 19]
   – confirms that there should be no authorized public liturgy and provision of services of blessing for civil unions [Clause 20]
   – provides that the prohibition on authorised public liturgy and provision of blessings also applies to same sex marriages [Clause 21]

   The Bishops have acted consistently with Lambeth 1:10 in so far as they do not permit marriages or public blessings of same sex marriages.

   3. Acts of Worship involving Pastoral Provision following a same sex marriage or union

   Lambeth 1:10 provides that it “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions” and “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 bishops’ statement:
   – recognises that some are “likely to seek some recognition of their new situation in the context of an act of worship” [Clause 19]
   – does not wish “to interfere with the clergy’s pastoral discretion about when more informal kind of prayer, at the request of the couple, might be appropriate in the light of the circumstances for civil unions” [Clause 20].
   – provides that in addition “any prayer will be accompanied by pastoral discussion of the church’s teaching and their reasons for departing from it. Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways” in the case of same sex marriage [Clause 21]

   Herein lies the problem with, as it is known in the US and Canada, “generous pastoral provision”. In the past in the CofE, while remarriage was not permitted, the affirmation of the vows taken by those men and women who had remarried in a civil registry and prayers for them in a service, albeit a ‘private’ service, came to be permitted. The bishops have not excluded similar ‘pastoral provision’ of affirmation and prayer in church as took place for married men and women in their ‘pastoral provision’.

   This is not what Lambeth 1:10 provides. It is more than blessing of remarriages or civil unions of same sex partners that Lambeth 1:10 excludes it is “legitimising of same sex unions”; and a ‘pastoral provision’ such as an affirmation of the vows undertaken and prayer for them in church in affirming the vows taken in a same sex marriage and praying for them would thus breach the spirit and the word of Lambeth 1:10 by legitimising it.

   4. Clergy and Same Sex Marriage

   Lambeth 1:10 provides that it: “cannot advise … ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”

   The House of Bishops was already in breach of this provision when it decided without prior reference to Synod to permit clergy to enter civil unions and more recently [the Jeffrey John provision] decided to permit such clergy in civil unions to be considered for the episcopacy ‘provided that they remained celibate’.

   In this statement the bishops do not permit:
   – those who are in a same sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry [Clause 27]
   – those already ordained [whether or not in a civil partnership] to enter into a same sex marriage [Clause 27]

   [cont.]

2. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

   February 15, 2014 at 1:45 pm

   Conclusion

   Provisionally pending any ‘clarification’ from the HOB it seems to me that:

   1. The bishops are to be commended for a statement which affirms marriage between a man and a woman for life and for the benefits provided for them and society by God in his grace and mercy as the Bishops trace that biblical gift.

   2. The bishops do not clearly state whether their pastoral statement which they ‘urge’ on clergy has any disciplinary value or whether Clause 28 is a nudge nudge wink wink provision applicable to all that precedes it.

   3. The archbishops do not appear to respect the decision of the Lambeth Conference in 1998 nor the decisions of the Primates Meetings in upholding Lambeth Resolution 1:10 in its entirety and nor do the bishops:
   “We have already committed ourselves to a process of facilitated conversations across the whole Church of England in the light of the Pilling Report. These conversations will involve ecumenical and interfaith partners and particularly the wider Anglican Communion”.
   The decision respectfully to adopt Lambeth 1:10 was rightly taken by the Lambeth Conference and affirmed by the Primates Meetings and any change is for them to decide, and so is any process whereby any change is made. It is not for the archbishops or bishops of the Church of England unilaterally to make that decision for them or to roll out ‘Facililitated Conversations’ and arrangements for them without the agreement of the Communion. It is particularly egregious to do so if funding for these Facilitated Conversations originates from a church in flagrant and notorious breach of Lambeth 1:10.

   4. The bishops have not been and still are not compliant with Lambeth 1:10 in relation to pastoral provision which does not legitimise same sex unions.

   5. The bishops are not in compliance with Lambeth Resolution 1:10 with regard to the ordained status of those who enter same sex unions such as civil partnerships nor in relation to those who may be considered for the episcopacy in England and by virtue of mutual recognition of orders in the Communion.

   6. The bishops have decided that clergy may not enter same sex marriages and that those who are in them may not be considered for ordination to any order

   7. The archbishops and the bishops make clear that the above is only provisional pending the conclusions of the ‘Facilitated Conversations’ which they have decided to put in place without the authority of or consultation with their Communion or ecumenical partners and indeed without the decision of the Synod of the Church of England.

   Almighty and everlasting God, who alone workest great marvels; Send down upon our Bishops, and Curates, and all Congregations committed to their charge, the healthful Spirit of thy grace; and that they may truly please thee, pour upon them the continual dew of thy blessing. Grant this, O Lord, for the honour of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen.

3. Katherine says:

   February 15, 2014 at 7:02 pm

   Thank you, Pageantmaster. Your #5, above, points out that with regard to “unions” or “partnerships,” the CofE is not in compliance with Lambeth 1:10 and does not, apparently, intend to be.

   One hopes that no believing Provinces will cooperate with these “facilitated conversations” in any way.

4. Fr. Dale says:

   February 15, 2014 at 7:08 pm

   Pageantmaster,
   You are spot on with your analysis. #28 will trump everything that precedes it. Particularly the phrase “continuing to discern the mind of Christ in fast changing context” and “seeking to avoid drawing lines too firmly”. It seems to me that ++Welby made a statement similar to the second comment like this recently. It is the wiggle room provided by #28. that concerns me. It is the final statement we should pay attention to. I think they mean ‘fast changing [social] context. So much for Anglican Tradition.

5. Fr. Dale says:

   February 15, 2014 at 7:29 pm

   Pageantmaster,
   When I reflect further, It seems to me that the rubicon moment for CoE was when the house of bishops accepted the conclusions of the Pilling report. The Pilling report laid the groundwork to abandon Lambeth 1:10 for the CoE.

6. ACNApriest says:

   February 15, 2014 at 7:37 pm

   I would love to hear how the portion below can be squared with the idea that same sex marriage is sinful. Are they saying it is a sin, but the church is not to provide discipline:
   Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle. [b] Neither they [/b] nor any children they care for should be [b] denied access to the sacraments [/b]

7. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

   February 15, 2014 at 7:48 pm

   #3 Katherine – agreed.

   #4/5 Fr Dale – It is foggy, and clause 28 particularly so. Is all that stuff about dissent and toleration a preamble to a ‘nevertheless you are expected to obey your bishop’; or is it construing the clause together as one, giving a nod to those who while urged by their bishop nevertheless decide to dissent because they have the nod that they will be tolerated?

   More concerning is the open season on pastoral responses to couples who ask for some sort of acknowledgement, thanksgiving and prayer for fidelity to the vows they have taken in a same sex marriage. That certainly could open the way to what is going on in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada. There is no provision in Lambeth 1:10 for such actions construed as ‘pastoral responses’ indeed the term pastoral responses is absent from Lambeth 1:10 – it is a breach of it.

   Bishop Nick Holtam was hosting same sex ceremonies at St Martin’s in the Fields before he became Bishop of Salisbury, although he cunningly absented himself from the rainbow flag-flying church while they were going on and claimed that he had therefore had nothing to do with them. Is this encouragement to him to do the same now?

   On the other hand Dale+ I have to say that it could have been a very much worse statement and does set itself against what TEC is doing officially, but 2 years down the line with some softening up with manipulated Facilitated Conversations TEC-style?

   Yes, Pilling was the nail in the coffin. If the composition and conclusions of the Pilling report was so at variance with Christian teaching and Lambeth 1:10, why should anyone believe that the Facilitated Conversations called for by it will be any more reliable?
   The fix is already in as to just how balanced these will be: “They will involve particular attention to the lived experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people”. Expect Canon David Porter, ABC’s Director of Reconciliation to be designing plays such as he did for the women bishops facilitated conversations at Synod with some sly role play of people explaining how hurt and marginalised they feel by cruel church rules, and with David Porter then asking the audience how they ‘FEEL’ and respond to that play, and how they would like to see another ending to the play.
   I hope everyone kicks Facilitated Conversations and their Facilitors into the long grass and puts an end to the Archbishops’ scheming mind games and this double talk.

8. tjmcmahon says:

   February 15, 2014 at 8:22 pm

   I have mixed feelings on this, but as I am on the outside looking in, have the advantage that at least I will not have to participate in any of these facilitated conversations. Although it might be interesting to send a resume, I had considerable University training in group dynamics and similar studies and might actually qualify to be a facilitator (my religious views would, of course, disqualify me, as I am sure that revisionism is a requirement of all facilitators.
   PM’s analysis is spot on, per usual. #28 makes it pretty clear that there will be no actual discipline, and that bishops may do whatever they like in their own dioceses, which is to say, go on doing what they are doing.
   The introduction of women bishops at the end of the year will, of course, make this document obsolete, since there will be a rush to appoint as many women bishops as possible, and the vast majority of candidates are clearly in favor of revising church rules (by definition- traditionalist women do not want women bishops, nor do they personally want to be one, although there might be a couple willing to take the office to prevent it falling into the hands of those who think Nick Holtam too conservative). But since it is already evident that the balance of the HoB favors “going with the flow” for gay marriage, adding several revisionists all at once will tip the scales in that direction.
   All that said, I was surprised by how much better this statement is than what I expected. It does tie up some of the loose ends from their earlier, post Pilling statement, which mirrored those TEC bishop statements from around 2009. So, what this means is that the CoE has about 2 years before it implements the outcome of the facilitated conversations- which outcome will be whatever Justin Welby and David Porter want it to be, because that is how facilitated conversations work. Well, ok, that is an overstatement. As I said, I have had some training in this. What actually happens is that the leadership overseeing the facilitators set a range of acceptable outcomes, and the facilitators keep everyone at the table until they “interpret” an outcome for the people at the table that falls within the range. So, the question for the orthodox, in the case of Pilling (as it is in the case of women’s ordination to the episcopate) is whether Welby will allow “amicable separation with a fair share of assets” or “oversight by Global South bishops without interference” or “separately maintained apostolic succession” on the table as viable options for the Christians remaining in CoE, or go the TEC route where the acceptable options are “revisionist theology” and “remaining in full communion with heretics and keeping your mouth shut.”

9. William S says:

   February 15, 2014 at 9:05 pm

   It is not easy to appeal to appeal to Lambeth 1.10 and expect unanimous respect for that resolution. There are several reasons:

   1. The revisionist account of how Lambeth 1.10 came to be accepted is that the Africans bullied the rest of the Bishops. So Lambeth 1.10 does not represent the true mind of the Communion. Archbishop Barry Morgan of Wales has said this on more than one occasion.
   2. The revisionist account of the content of Lambeth 1.10 overlooks what it says about homosexual practice being incompatible with scripture, and homes in on what it says about listening to the experience of homosexual persons. Archbishop Barry Morgan again highlights this often.
   3. As soon as Lambeth 1.10 was agreed, 146 Bishops distanced themselves from it by writing a pastoral letter to gay and lesbian Anglicans apologising for that resolution and pledging to ‘continue to reflect, pray, and work for your full inclusion in the life of the Church’. Of the signatories nearly a quarter were from the CofE. Four of the six Welsh Bishops signed, including Rowan Willams and Barry Morgan.

   My point is simply that those who hold to the scriptural teaching on same-sex relationships sometimes try to appeal to Lambeth 1.10 as at least a starting-point that the Communion agreed to. Formally that is correct. But in practice the revisionist camp have an alternative view of its genesis, its content and its application which undermines Lambeth 1.10’s authority. To judge from the number of dissenting English Bishops in 1998, that alternative view was widespread in 1998 – I can’t imagine the present HoB would regard Lambeth 1.10 more favourably than their predecessors did.

10. New Reformation Advocate says:

    February 15, 2014 at 11:09 pm

    I too thank PM for his thorough vetting of this important public statement by the English HoB. Well done, and very illuminating, PM.

    Unfortunately, my own take on this major document is even more negative than PM’s.

    One key reason for that more pessimistic assessment has already been highlighted by ACNApriest in #6 above. In the end, it is simply nonsensical for the HoB to take refuge in the self-contradictory position that nothing has changed, and the traditional understanding of marriage is still upheld and officially binding, while at the same time asserting that those who find themselves unable to live up to the high moral standards are to be accepted on their own terms and allowed to participate in the life of the Church, including its sacramental life, on an equal footing with those who do comply with those high standards.

    IOW, it’s not merely a matter of “untidiness,” as the euphemism often goes, it is sheer incoherence, evasion, and even (self-)deception (whether conscious or unconscious, intentional or unintentional deception, starting with self-deception) for the bishops to claim to be upholding the traditional Christian view of marriage while they are at the same time permitting that biblical and traditional view to be undermined in practice, with no real consequences.

    The HoB are wrong, categorically wrong. It’s not merely those afflicted with SSA who live in sin by setting up domestic life with a person of the same sex (whether in an officially recognized and legal civic partnership or not) who should be subjected to public discipline and excommunicated (i.e., temporarily, until they repent and make amends). More importantly, it is also the much larger number of heterosexual couples who unashamedly engage in cohabitation, again whether in civil partnerships or not, who should likewise be placed under public discipline and denied communion until they repent.

    I’m totally serious. And if that means treating the vast majority of the population as needing PUBLIC discipline and refused the Eucharist until they repent, then so be it!! Let the majority of the population go to hell (and I mean that literally), but let the Church be the Church!

    One of the critical needs of our time is for the Church as a whole, but not least the Anglican tradition worldwide, and especially in the Global North, to recover and reintroduce the ancient discipline of the order of public penitents that existed in the first several centuries.

    For a long time, we Anglicans have gotten used to hearing and using the standard three-fold phrase regarding the ordained ministry: i.e., that the ranks of the ordained are made up of bishops, priests, and deacons. Well, it’s high time for us to go back and recover the ancient patristic tradition when it comes to the three-fold ordering of the non-ordained portion of the Church as well. Namely, there are three ORDERS among the non-ordained as well, i.e., the Faithful (fidelis in Latin), Penitents, and Catechumens. The fact that the latter two orders disappeared from Church life in the early middle ages, long before the Protestant Reformation, is irrelevant. The fact that there is no historical precedent since the time of the Reformation for re-creating the ancient orders of public penitents and catechumens is also completely irrelevant (IMHO). Times have changed, and our new post-Christendom social setting demands a return to the pre-Imperial, pre-Christendom mode of organizing Church life that was universal in the 3rd to 5th centuries.

    IOW, if some low church and broad church Anglicans were to protest that re-instituting the ancient orders of public penitents and catechumens (for both adults and children) is an inherently unProtestant thing to do. My answer would be: So what?? Who cares? I admit that I don’t.

    Now if that sort of truly radical solution to a pressing pastoral problem were to be tried and gradually implemented, that just might amount to….
    you guessed it,
    a New Reformation.

    David Handy+
    (As an American, I dislike and distrust state churches anyway)

11. Militaris Artifex says:

    February 15, 2014 at 11:12 pm

    ISTM that this latest version of the HoB Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage is thoroughly consistent with Matthew 5:37 (NR[b]SS[/b]V), namely: [blockquote] [i]Let your yes be maybe, and let your no be maybe[/i].[/blockquote]
    [i]Pax et bonum[/i],
    Keith Töpfer

12. dwstroudmd+ says:

    February 16, 2014 at 4:58 am

    “Do you, cOE, take Zeitgeist to be your faithful, committed sexually active relationship?”
    “Do you, Zeitgest, take cOE to be your faithful, committed sexually active relationship?”
    “You have shown yourselves to be culturally bound (for now, at least) and therefore you are pronounced ‘hip,’ ‘with it,’ ‘accomodated,’ and ‘recognized’ for as long you as you both are hip, with it, accomodated, and care to recognize your relationship (for now), allowing conscientious dissent and seeking to avoid drawing lines too firmly when the issue is one where you are seeking to discern which is ‘coolest’ in a fast changing context.”
    Finis.

13. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    February 16, 2014 at 10:02 am

    #9 William S

    It is not easy to appeal to appeal to Lambeth 1.10 and expect unanimous respect for that resolution

    No, perhaps not in the United Kingdom, nor in North America, but it is the teaching those churches signed up to, including as the bishops acknowledge, the Church of England.

    Most importantly in the Communion it is accepted fully in most of the Global South and by GAFCON.

    It is worth remembering the Global South Response to the Pilling Report in December:

    The Pilling Report suggests, that while the Church of England should not change its teaching, it should give a space to provide pastoral care to gay and lesbians such as doing same-sex blessing with unauthorized liturgies. It is similar to what some churches in North America called “a local option” and now has become a standard practice in these churches. In the pretext of providing pastoral care, the suggestion in a very subtle way, encourages the turning of a blind eye to a major alteration of the teaching of the church. This suggestion, of a local option, likewise ignores an historic Anglican approach to doctrine, namely lex orandi, lex credendi – what we pray is what we believe. A pastoral provision, while not officially changing the church’s teaching, does, in practice and in fact, change the church’s teaching. The Global South are resolutely opposed to this.

    The Global South considers forward movement on the Pilling Report’s recommendations as equal to what the North American churches did ten years ago which caused much confusion in the Communion. This reminds us of Eli the High Priest who turned a blind eye to the wrongdoings of his sons which led to a period of spiritual dryness when the Spirit of God departed from the midst of His people (Ichabod).

    and

    Surely, after all the Primates meetings that have discussed the divisions in the Communion and provided ways forward, the Windsor Report, the absence of one-third of the Bishops at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and the absence of many Primates from 2011 Primates meetings, the Pilling Report does not acknowledge that extensive consultations in the Communion have already been done. We regret that greater attention to these reports and Primates statements did not provide more guidance in the recommendations of the Pilling Report as representing recent, existing consultations. Most of us in the Global South have already participated in the Listening Process. After more than 10 years of listening and conversation, we do not see a value of endless conversations and indabas.

    We are clear on what the Bible teaches about sexual relationships outside of the marriage of one man and one woman, and the need for pastoral care for those who find themselves in relationships outside of this. The dissenting view written by the Bishop of Birkenhead captures well our position. For us in the Global South, his view is the majority view, and we hope the Church of England Bishops will recognize this. The Church of England needs to be cautious in taking decisions that will compromise faith and the position of the Church of England within the Anglican Communion as well as the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury..

    Then again the GAFCON II Statement:

    The 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality states that sexual activity is to be exclusive to marriage and that abstinence is right for those who are single. We still hold to that authoritative statement. Sexual temptation affects us all, and we pray therefore for faithfulness to God’s Word in marriage and singleness.

    We grieve that several national governments, aided by some church leaders, have claimed to redefine marriage and have turned same-sex marriage into a human rights issue. Human rights, we believe, are founded on a true understanding of human nature, which is that we are created in God’s image, male and female such that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (Matthew 19:6; Ephesians 5:31). We want to make clear that any civil partnership of a sexual nature does not receive the blessing of God. We continue to pray for and offer pastoral support to Christians struggling with same-sex temptation who remain celibate in obedience to Christ and affirm them in their faithfulness.

    The gospel alone has the power to transform lives. As the gospel is heard, the Holy Spirit challenges and convicts of sin, and points to the love of God expressed in his Son, Jesus Christ. The sheer grace of God in setting us free from sin through the cross of Christ leads us into the enjoyment of our forgiveness and the desire to lead a holy life. This enables the relationship with God that Jesus makes possible to flourish. Moreover, just as individual lives can be transformed, so can the life of churches. We therefore commit ourselves and call on our brothers and sisters throughout the Communion to join in rediscovering the power of the gospel and seeking boldness from the Holy Spirit to proclaim it with renewed vigour.

    It is certainly true that in the British churches, some clergy do dissent from this view, but the bishops will have had in mind the warnings from the Global South to their position if they move from biblical teaching.

    It is also true that the British and American governments of the day have made their agenda and the promotion of it in other countries key policy, and this has also increased the pressure on churches.

    It remains to be seen what the response of British voters will be at the next election but while I would not agree with it we should perhaps be mindful of President Putin’s comment that Britain is “just a small island that nobody listens to”, and adopt more humility in our dealings with the other members of the Anglican Communion than we currently do. Perhaps we should do some ‘listening’.

14. tjmcmahon says:

    February 16, 2014 at 11:59 pm

    While I would agree that this is a flawed document, it is much better than what any of us were expecting.

    If I were a “conservative” bishop (you know, someone who had been conciliated), I would get my standing committee together and get a resolution adopting the exact same wording for my diocese’s next convention. If you adopt the policy of the CoE, it will make it much harder for TEC to enforce its new policies in your diocese, and also make it much more difficult for the ABoC to cut you and your clergy off (ala the former TEC bishops now in ACNA) if TEC decides to throw you out.

15. Katherine says:

    February 17, 2014 at 12:37 am

    Wishful thinking, #14, in my opinion. TEC is going to enforce what it wants to, and appeals to the policy of the mother church haven’t helped so far.

16. CSeitz-ACI says:

    February 17, 2014 at 12:58 am

    #14 — I agree with your assessment.
    What is also very/most obvious is the hornet’s nest this has stirred up amongst progressives in the CofE. They are incandescent. So the next step to track is the effect of their full-bodied rejection of the HOB. They think it will move the ball down the court, but equally it could make more obvious the dividing lines and the impossibility of any kind of ongoing association.

17. tjmcmahon says:

    February 17, 2014 at 12:59 am

    #15,

    I don’t really disagree with you, and imagine that the current CoE document will be history as soon as a half dozen liberal women bishops have been appointed. But for the moment, KJS very much wants to keep all of her official Communion status, recognition by the ABoC, etc., because it gives her Oxford degrees and conveys legitimacy of to her unChristian, despotic reign. And the current ABoC has surprised us with this document, certainly surprised TEC with it (granted, probably gave KJS a few extra days notice it was coming. I do note that both the HoBD listserve and Episcopal Cafe have been remarkably silent, which often seems to mean there is some “moderating” going on- indicating they were aware in advance, and held up the outraged postings, at least for a day or two).
    So it is a thin thread, but better thin than none at all, which is what Christians in TEC currently have.

18. Katherine says:

    February 17, 2014 at 1:50 am

    Well, Dr. Seitz, #16, this uproar is indeed making the dividing lines more clear. The CofE’s capacity to “fudge” may have been finally exceeded. We can pray for the CofE to retreat from the precipice, and for its leaders to see that it is in fact teetering there.

19. art says:

    February 17, 2014 at 4:58 am

    If John Bingham of the UK Daily Telegraph (re)tweeted on the Statement from the CoE HOB as, “a masterclass in doublespeak, obfuscation and internal contradiction”, then I think we should remind ourselves of the current Lectionary Gospel reading, Matt 5:37.

    Consequently, what we have will clearly be honoured in the breach. Paragraphs 25-28 cannot be otherwise interpreted – nor practised.

    #16, Seitz’s assessment therefore is paramount: “but equally it could make more obvious the dividing lines and the impossibility of any kind of ongoing association.”

20. tjmcmahon says:

    February 17, 2014 at 5:23 am

    Dr. Seitz,
    In terms of the impact this might have within TEC, I am inclined to think that hinges on
    a) the ability of the CoE to make this stick for an extended period of time. And that will in turn depend on the willingness of Canterbury and York to use all their influence in the selection process to assure selection of bishops who will uphold the traditional teaching on marriage and other aspects of theology. Had that been true for the last 10 years, the English HoB would not suffer the internal stresses it is experiencing. And
    b) on the willingness of the ABoC to back up orthodox clergy in TEC if (or when) a disciplinary action is taken against a TEC bishop for upholding that same teaching and theology.

21. Jim the Puritan says:

    February 17, 2014 at 9:04 am

    God is truly sorting out those who will remain faithful and obedient from those who will not.

22. Stephen Noll says:

    February 17, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Those who take heart from the HOB Report would, it seems, be primarily encouraged by the inclusion of sections 1-4 of the Appendix, which cite the Church’s traditional view of marriage found in Canon B30, the BCP, and Lambeth Resolution I.10. So far, so good, I suppose. But please look further:

    What is the shape of the “Appendix”? Does it not describe an historical continuum moving from past to present, Hegel’s [i]thesis[/i] of exclusive monogamy to be encountered by the [i]antithesis[/i] of same-sex marriage, ending in a [i]synthesis[/i] of No to same-sex marriage (for now) and Yes to civil unions?

    Note the following omissions in sections 1-4. In section 1 they quote the modern rendering in Canon B30, which gives the second “cause” or purpose of marriage as “for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections.” I do not know the background of Canon B30’s modernization, but clearly it leaves wiggle room for who would argue that homosexual desire is a natural affection and therefore not prohibited. In any case, when they do quote the 1662 BCP in section 3, they omit the original wording: “for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body,” which itself is drawn from 1 Corinthians 7:5-9.

    In section 4, they quote Lambeth I.10 clause (b), which states that “abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage”; but they do not quote clause (d) “rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and clause (e) in which the bishops “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions,” which rejection clearly includes civil unions as well same-sex marriage. Taking clause (b) by itself, it can be argued that abstinence for those not “called to marriage” refers only to heterosexuals and that homosexuals are called into faithful civil unions.

    The remainder of the Appendix forms a trajectory leading to a conclusion: that the moral norms of the Church’s traditional teaching need to be modified to include “faithful same-sex civil unions.” At a procedural level, the facilitated conversations will build up the string of precedents leading to that conclusion.

    For those who wish to be optimistic about this Statement, let me pose the simple question: [i]Is there any way on God’s green earth that the facilitated conversations will come to the conclusion that the traditional teaching found in the BCP and Lambeth I.10 is simply true and applicable to the pastoral practice of the Church of England?[/i]

23. Fr. Dale says:

    February 17, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    Stephen Noll,
    “Is there any way on God’s green earth that the facilitated conversations will come to the conclusion that the traditional teaching found in the BCP and Lambeth I.10 is simply true and applicable to the pastoral practice of the Church of England?” No. What bothers me the most is the dishonesty about the supposedly neutral goals of the facilitated conversations. ++Welby said he wants “Good disagreement”. Whatever happened to “…And they were all with one accord.”?(Acts 1:14, 2:1) The groundwork for the results of this conversation has already been prepared by the Pilling report. I think the phrase, “Nothing has changed” is the most disingenuous of all. These supposed stewards of orthodoxy are not guardians of what has been handed down, they are architects of incremental innovation. Has the church come to accept division? St. Paul warned against divisions and factionalism.

24. Stephen Noll says:

    February 17, 2014 at 6:55 pm

    As for outrage on the Left over this Statement, have we learned nothing from the experience in the USA over the past forty years?

    There may be out-of-control outrage by some on the Left. There may be calculated outrage by others in order to shore up the base and intimidate the Malcolm Milquetoasts of the middle.

    But if the example of TEC is any guide, the leadership of the Left will not swerve from its goal of changing the teaching of the church and transforming the institution. Think of it. Integrity USA endured more than twenty-five years of being told that homosexual practice was contrary to the Church’s traditional teaching. They did not leave; they practiced canonical disobedience on occasion. But they never lost sight of the goal.

    These people can do politics (“it ain’t beanbag!”). They knew that Bishop Milquetoast would sooner or later end up marching with them in the Gay Pride parade.

    Is the UK a different context? Good luck with that. If anything, the secular environment today is much more favorable to the Left than it was in the USA some decades ago.

25. CSeitz-ACI says:

    February 17, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    #21. That is my assessment as well.

26. New Reformation Advocate says:

    February 17, 2014 at 9:47 pm

    Thanks to many of the above commenters for their astute and helpful observations. Although no one has seen fit to interact with my feisty and even inflammatory #10 above, let me offer a clarification anyway, for the record, lest it be misunderstood.

    When I called for the revival of the ancient custom of the Order of Public Pentitents, and i provocatively said that the predictable objection of low church and broad church Anglicans that such a thing was “un-Protestant” was irrelevant, it was all too easy for that remark to be taken in a sense that I didn’t intend. What I was trying to say wasn’t that I discount all Protestant theological objections to such a radical proposal, but rather that I don’t think that the lack of any historical precedent within Protestant practice since the Reformation is a serious or insurmountable problem. After all, there are at least some Protestant-minded Anglicans who value the pre-Reformation heritage of Anglicanism and lay claim to a large share in the patristic inheritance, just as we more catholic-minded Anglicans do.

    I’m sorry if my rather intemperate comment #10 may have suggested otherwise to some readers.

    FWIW, I particularly relished the ascerbic, succinct comment by Dr. Stroud above (#12). His satirical jibe nails it. In the end, the self-contradictory position taken by the HoB is ridiculous, i.e., not only self-defeating, but actually worthy of public ridicule for its stupidity. It’s not just wrong-headed, but downright stupid. Appeasement never works. So lampooning such a lame document is entirely apt. “It is meet and right so to do.”

    In the spirit of his satirical #12, I would remind us all of the famous maxim that I believe is attributed to the rather liberal Dean Arthur Stanley of St. Paul’s, London about a century ago. “Whoever marries the spirit of the age will find himself a widower in the next.” Or something to that effect.

    David Handy+

27. art says:

    February 18, 2014 at 2:35 am

    David Handy, your suggestion of reviving the Early Church’s ‘order’ of ‘penitents’ is most laudable, in my view. It expresses a common morality for both lay and ordained, amongst other things, which the CoE has clearly ditched (on paper if not yet in practice). The reason I did not respond earlier is simply this. When some claim same-sex marriage to be “Reasonable and Holy”, there is no felt need for any penitence, let alone an order of like-minded folk on their pilgrimage of return to faith.

    In fact, I have been forced to conclude it is going to take 2-4 generations for the tide to turn, for western societies to “come to their senses” about this primordial human institution of marriage. Of course, as the remnant Church begins to attract folk back to the Faith in due course, half-way houses as you suggest, both catechumenal and penitential, will be required. Until then, may the Lord’s judgment be mixed with mercy.

28. Jim the Puritan says:

    February 18, 2014 at 4:10 am

    Certainly, every time I read of the latest developments in the CofE or TEC, I feel like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4q6eaLn2mY

29. Publius says:

    February 18, 2014 at 4:43 am

    [blockquote]For those who wish to be optimistic about this Statement, let me pose the simple question: Is there any way on God’s green earth that the facilitated conversations will come to the conclusion that the traditional teaching found in the BCP and Lambeth I.10 is simply true and applicable to the pastoral practice of the Church of England? [/blockquote]

    Most commenters here view the “facilitated discussions” and the vagueness of the HoB’s Pastoral Guidance to the Church regarding people in same sex relationships as the nose of the camel, a temporary pausing point along the CofE’s inexorable drift to TEC’s position regarding same sex marriages, etc. Given our experiences with Frank Griswold and Rowan Williams, no one can deny that such an interpetation is possible and logical.

    But consider this alternative interpetation: the Pastoral Guidance has just stated how far the C of E will go, and no farther. The Pastoral Guidance clearly states that the CofE will [b]not[/b] perform same sex weddings, or bess same sex civil unions, or ordain to any order those in same sex marriages or civil unions. This is a very clear limitation, far more clear and forceful than anything adopted by TEC in recent times, even before 2003. Viewed this way, the unhappiness among the revisionists makes sense. Moreover, in this interpretation, the “facilitated discussions” are a way in which to indaba the left into eventually acknowledging the imposition of the CofE’s limits announced in this document. If TEC pays for that, what a delicious irony.

    As others on this thread have noted, it is certainly true that the left never, ever gives up. The revisionists in the CofE will continue to work relentlessly to push the CofE toward TEC’s position until they retire. But that is true regardless of what the HoB says now in any document, and regardless of what the ABC says or does. Tomorrow’s battles will have to be fought tomorrow.

    The important point is this: in the battle today, the CofE did not adopt TEC’s position. That is a clear victory for the orthodox. The ambiguity regarding what priests will say to people in same sex relationships may be, but is not necessarily, a precursor of the CofE’s eventual adoption of TEC’s position.

    Many commenters here and on other threads have accused the ABC of being a wily revisionist whose statements mask his revisionism. After living through the archbishoprics of Frank Griswold and Rowan Williams, I can appreciate that interpretation. But just suppose that Justin Welby actually wants to reverse the CofE’s drift toward TEC’s positions? As a thought experiment, place yourself in the ABC’s position: the ABC faces considerable opposition within the CofE, within the Anglican Communion (from TEC and its allies, which control the Communion’s machinery), from the secular authorities in the UK, and from secular opinion makers in Western culture who view the Church’s traditional teching regarding marriage, etc. as crude homophobia. If you were ABC and faced that much powerful opposition, what would be your first move? Consider the ABC’s recent interview and the HoB’s Pastoral Statement from that perspective.

30. tjmcmahon says:

    February 18, 2014 at 4:56 am

    Publius,
    “The Pastoral Guidance clearly states that the CofE will not…ordain to any order those in same sex marriages or civil unions.”

    I don’t believe it says that. The document says that those in gay marriages should not be ordained (and I am inclined to think that if they had meant “will not” they would have said so). The practice of ordaining those in civil unions (or “partnerships”) will continue as it has for the last 9 years. A few months ago, they expanded their logic (if you can call it that) to include the ordination of bishops in civil unions, although they have yet to do so.

    I do agree that this is a slowing of the momentum of the liberal slide in the CoE, but it is hardly a victory. The CoE remains in violation of Lambeth 1.10, and there is no reason to think they will return to the orthodox standard anytime in our lifetimes.

31. MichaelA says:

    February 18, 2014 at 9:09 am

    Publius wrote:

    “But consider this alternative interpetation: the Pastoral Guidance has just stated how far the C of E will go, and no farther. …”

    True, that is possible, and I pray that it is.

    We will know soon enough: the left, as you point out, will not stop pushing. If this does represent a principled line, the CofE HOB will likely get further opportunities to reinforce it, in the not-too-distant future.

    Mind you, I don’t blame PM and other orthodox members of the CofE for being cynical – the leadership of CofE has dirked them many times in the past.

    And there is a very obvious reason why the HOB would want to put on an orthodox face at this time – they dearly want to get the women bishops measure over the line. They found its rejection last time extremely embarrassing, giving the impression to their secular political equivalents that they are not really in control of their own church.

    Therefore, the last thing that the bishops of CofE want to do right now is aggravate conservative evangelicals and anglo-catholics with another issue, when they are trying to smooch enough of them away to get the women bishops measure through General Synod. So, they take a strong principled stand against gay marriage (which will remain strong and principled right up until the moment it isn’t) at least until the women bishops measure is passed. Then its business as usual – a slow creep towards blessing of gay marriage and admission of openly practicing homosexuals to the episcopacy.

    Now, I don’t know the future, and its entirely possible that this strong (and to me, entirely predictable) stand will last more than a few months. I pray that it does.

32. ACNApriest says:

    February 18, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    [blockquote] 18. We recognise the many reasons why couples wish their relationships to have a formal status. These include the joys of exclusive commitment and also extend to the importance of legal recognition of the relationship. To that end, civil partnership continues to be available for same sex couples. Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle. Neither they nor any children they care for should be denied access to the sacraments.
    [/blockquote]

    No one who wants to argue for a positive reading of this overall statement has commented on the fact that it forbids sacramental discipline for those in same sex relationships. it also in effect forbids any limitation on their participation in leadership in the local church. So the rector cannot say given your lifestyle choice you cannot stand for vestry etc. I am not saying they should be shunned, but a heterosexual couple cohabiting could be subject to disclipline, but homosexuals could not. IT IS INCOHERENT. It is a sign of how desperate we are for good news that we are latching on to this.

33. tired says:

    February 18, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    [32] I thought the same thing.

    Clergy may question the lifestyle of someone as it pertains to their carbon footprint – but not this?

    Gimme a break.

    🙄

34. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) says:

    February 20, 2014 at 10:04 am

    It is true I read the excerpt and not the full text.

    “Facilitated conversations” with anyone resembling a revisionist simply means that dialogue will and must continue until you come around to his/her way of thinking. And whenever you tell them they are wrong or their behaviors are incompatible with Scripture, you are “using doctrine to hurt them”; thus YOU are bad and can only repent from such by capitulating.

    Statements, rules, doctrine, etc. mean nothing unless there is an administrative plan to enforce them. Looking the other way and/or turning a blind eye, is, of course, NOT enforcing them. And why have them if you’re not going to enforce them? Because it seems to look good, attempts to minimize conflict, and placates the majority of people.

    It does not seem to me that the document defines “civil partnership” and “same sex marriage” as different or the same. And even if a bishop were to discipline a priest or deny an ordinand, it is not “same sex legal marriage” in Britain, it’s a civil partnership–So the defense, if one is needed, is, “But, your Grace, I’m not ‘married’, I’m in a ‘partnership’. It’s the ‘p’ word, not the ‘m’ word.” So discipline or the outline here does not apply to anyone in the ‘p’ word; they’d have to be in the same-sex ‘m’ word for any of this to apply.

    Yet it will be interesting to see who does or does not pressure Cameron to make the “legal” word same-sex “marriage” in Britain. Them would be different apples…

    TJ hits on why this might be complicated for all-the-marbles revisionism in the US. Many states do legally call it civil same-sex “marriage”. If this is the C of E’s position, using the ‘m’ word, and a traditional TEC priest, Standing Committee, or diocese holds to it, it does make it harder for the PB to toss traditional clergy whose teachings are in line with C of E teachings.

    Hope that makes some sense. I’m tired… 🙂

35. justice1 says:

    February 20, 2014 at 11:44 pm

    I think the truest statement on this entire page is found just above me. Bookworm, we are all tired. This train derailed in 2001 in Canada, and has continued to smash everything in it’s path, albeit slowly, ever since. Let’s face it, in the end, TEC, the COE, and the ACC will all end up changing their marriage canons to embrace same-sex marriage as holy and normative. And when they do, they will have driven all who disagree out. What in the last 13 years gives us any reason to think otherwise?

36. Br. Michael says:

    February 21, 2014 at 5:36 pm

    35, that the best short summary I have read. You are right.

37. New Reformation Advocate says:

    February 21, 2014 at 9:16 pm

    art (#27),

    Thanks for backing me up. We’ll have to wait and see if western/Global North societies do experience a turning of the tide, whether in 2-4 generations, or ever. Unfortunately, you and I won’t live that long (on earth), and our children and grandchildren will have to live with the fallout in the meantime. As I tried to suggest above, cohabitation poses an even bigger threat to the institution of marriage than the so-called “marriage equality” movement does. For that matter, so-called “No fault divorce” has also been a huge disaster, especially in the US, allowing millions of people to dump a spouse, even though their mate still wanted to try to save the marriage.

    One of the NT texts that is most widely ignored or even openly flouted in our time is the relatively obscure admonition in Heb. 13:4,
    “Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.”

    I don’t expect a cynical, amoral, secularized society to uphold the high Christian view of marriage (even though it is indeed rooted in natural law and hence an objective, universal value). What is so galling and calamitous is that the Church has (at least in large part) capitulataed to the permissive cultural Zeitgeist. The salt of the earth has lost its saltiness, and how shall its saltiness be restored??

    The tide must turn within the Church, before it can or will turn in the larger society of which the authentic Christian community is a small and increasingly beseiged and misunderstood part. But for the CoE to experience such a turning of the tide, it must renounce, once and for all, all illusions of being a national church and all pretensions of representing the majority of the population. Of course, such self-disestablishment would mean completely renogiating the social contract between the CoE and the English people (and the English political and legal system).

    Unlikely, you say? Inconceivable even?? Well, personally, I don’t think so. After all, the English population have been voting with their feet for at least “2-4” generations. When only a miniscule percentage of the country bothers to show up for public worship in the CoE, de facto disestablishment has already taken place, even if it hasn’t become legalized yet, de jure. The only real question therefore is, how long will it take for the leaders of the CoE to come out of their collective denial and face up to this grim new reality, with all its unpleasant and very far=reaching implications?

    David Handy+
    (again, as an American, I dislike and distrust state churches anyway)

38. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) says:

    February 24, 2014 at 6:13 am

    “What in the last 13 years gives us any reason to think otherwise?”

    Justice1, nothing. All these years I’ve never thought otherwise, I just watched it unfold, as everybody did. I believe the closest thing to “fixing” it would have been the plan outlined in the Dar Es Salaam communique, and everyone that could have acted on it(namely the previous AB of C) did not–and the ugly bloomers of their true agenda showed.

    Certainly people like Williams never believed that, if one has to scheme and collude to get his way or work his plan, then perhaps the plan is wrong.

    I have discussed this a bit with PM offline and I wonder about having BOTH same-sex marriage and civil partnerships on the British register…we(in general) do not yet know what ecclesial confusion or obfuscation that will bring.

    I’m sure we know that “generous pastoral response” basically means a free-for-all and if any clergy color outside whatever lines may be there(near-nil), they won’t be disciplined anyway.

    The RC Church is far from perfect, but I will give them credit in not allowing their priests to play Go Fish(or whichever funny games) with Doctrine, especially where the Sacraments are concerned.

    And me? Well, I sit in one of the last boats. When all is said and done, I will still have the Triune God, and His Word as Written–timeless, gameless, and shameless. 🙂

39. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) says:

    February 25, 2014 at 9:19 pm

    “If you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don’t believe, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”–Saint Augustine