The question then becomes what status we should give to the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships by some Anglican churches today.

In the words of C S Lewis, the traditional rule of the Christian Church with regard to sexual ethics has always been ‘either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence’[9] (marriage here means marriage between a man and a woman). This is the consensual teaching about marriage and sexual ethics that, as Vincent of Lerin puts it, has been held ‘always, everywhere and by everyone’[10] from biblical times onwards, in the same way that belief in the divinity of Christ and his bodily resurrection have been universally taught and accepted.

In the words of Darrin Belousek in his book Marriage, Scripture and the Church:

‘Scripture, consistently, presents a single picture of marriage and approves a single pattern of sexual relations: male- female union. Jesus summarizes this witness: ‘the two’ of ‘male and female’ joined into ‘one flesh.’ The Holy Spirit has woven this pattern of holy union throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, in the form, function, and figure of marriage. Tradition, East and West, also has consistently taught a single standard of sex and marriage: marriage is man-woman monogamy; all sex outside man-woman monogamy is sin. This doctrine has been taught always by the church, beginning with the apostles’ testimony to Jesus teaching; It has been proclaimed throughout the worldwide church, among all people in every place and epoch, as God’s will for sex and marriage; it has been articulated by apologetic writings and theological treatises, transmitted through baptismal catechesis and canonical discipline, celebrated in monastic vows and nuptial rites.’ [11]

Judged against this standard, the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships (and even same-sex marriages) by some churches in the Anglican Communion has to be viewed as a ‘gross and grievous abomination,’ since it constitutes a departure from a key part of the Catholic and apostolic faith and an endorsement of sin. To put it plainly the churches involved have supported both heresy and immorality.

Furthermore, as the Church of England Evangelical Council report ‘Guarding the Deposit’ notes, the apostolic witness in the New Testament, which has also been accepted ‘everywhere at all times and by all,‘  teaches that:

‘…the Church should make a separation in this world between the people of God and those who practise sexual immorality (1 Cor 5: 1-13).

As Tom Wright notes, Paul teaches that the Church has the ‘God-given right and duty to discriminate between those who are living in the Messiah’s way and those who are not’.

Read it all.

Martin Davie–Assessing two different visions for the future of the Anglican Communion https://t.co/F3so2u4TtA 'The difference between the two views of the future of global Anglicanism put forward by the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals and The Abuja Affirmation is that the former holds… pic.twitter.com/LXTgMmiuOZ

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) March 16, 2026

Professor Helen King has put forward a private members motion for debate at the Church of England’s General Synod that runs as follows:

‘That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.’[1]

The Church of England website states that this motion had 161 signatures on 18 February, which is the second largest number of signatures of the four motions listed, and if the number of signatures continues to increase there is the possibility that it could be selected for debate at the General Synod in July.

The language of King’s motion deliberately echoes the language of the motion passed by General Synod in 1975 ‘That this Synod considers that there are no fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood.’ This motion paved the way to General Synod passing legislation allowing women to be ordained as deacons in 1986, as priests in 1992 and as bishops in 2014. The purpose of King’s motion is an attempt to pave the way in similar fashion for those in same-sex relationships to be allowed to be ordained in the Church of England.

The motion would not in itself make such ordination lawful, but it would provide the basis on which a measure to allow those in same-sex relationships to be ordained could then be brought forward for debate. The argument would go that because General Synod had voted for King’s motion it had established the principle that ‘such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship’ and this would in turn mean that it was entirely compatible with the exercise of ordained ministry.

This being the nature of King’s motion, the question that arises is whether it would be right for members of Synod to vote for it should it be put forward for debate in July. In the remainer of this post I shall set out the two reasons why I think members of Synod should not vote for it.

Read it all.

I have just published a new blog post 'Why faithful Christians should reject Helen King's private member's motion.'https://t.co/bXjhSyRYsT

— Martin Davie (@MartinBDavie) March 2, 2026

The episcopal synod of the Church of the Province of Central Africa has ratified the provincial synod’s vote last year in Malawi to divide the province into three national churches. 

The primate, the Most Rev. Albert Chama on 20 Feb 2026 said all of the bishops from the province’s 15 dioceses met at the Bishops Mount Centre in Harare and agreed to form national churches for Zimbabwe, Malawi and Zambia. The diocese of Botswana would enter the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, he said.

“Now, this is happening not out of selfishness,” Archbishop Chama said, noting, “we’ve been together since 1955, when our province was inaugurated.”

“We’ve had a lot of good things that we’ve done together. Fellowship, going across nations and across borders, just to fellowship and strengthen the Church and strengthen one another. That has been very, very good.”

Read it all.

Today, in the Anglican Cycle of Prayer, we pray for The Church of the Province of Central Africa and the Most Revd Albert Chama, the Archbishop of Central Africa and Bishop of Lusaka.

Let us pray for:

🙏 Mission and evangelism — for renewed witness, faithful discipleship and… pic.twitter.com/X3mqtVMm95

— Anglican Communion (@AnglicanWorld) January 4, 2026

Now in similar manner, the Church of England Canon law on Marriage is cast as ‘unjust’ by an appeal to subjective feelings and desires. This is the basic thrust of Thompson’s argument which calls for acceptance of same-sex civil marriage.

Anglican divine Richard Hooker stated unequivocally that human authority in the sphere of law was totally subject to the moral law of scripture.  “Laws human are of force so far forth as they are agreeable to the law of God.”[x]Biblical law must always inform issues of justice, and the 39 Articles of Religion asserts this principle, “… it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”[xi]

Christ definitely does not embody a law based on democratic human decisions which is in total opposition to God’s holy law. The people’s voice cannot take the place of God’s voice. After all, the people’s voice all too quickly turns into a baying for blood – as in, “Crucify him”^[xii].

Christ as the second Adam[xiii] points us back to the Creator’s original intention for human beings, as described in Genesis. His purpose for human sexuality – to bond a man and a woman in lifelong marriage so that children may be brought up in the knowledge and fear of the Lord[xiv]. Certainly, without knowing the purpose of humanity, we cannot know what justice is.

Read it all.

Is the penny dropping? Is clergy same-sex marriage a step too far for the CofE?https://t.co/81lNU3o0A5

— Anglican Futures (@AnglicanFutures) January 24, 2025

There were eight amendments tabled, ensuring that the debate would last the whole five hours. Many of them were predictable—from revisionists wanting to amplify the apology, and delete the idea that LLF is over, and some from orthodox wanting to amend or delete the possibility of continuing discussion.

There were two exceptions to that, though, the first from Christopher Landau simply recognising that the ‘LGBTQI+ people’ were actually a diverse lot with different views. This is, of course, anathema to revisionists, who repeatedly talked as though all such people were a monolith who agreed with them—despite the number of gay women and men in the chamber who were orthodox and gave very clear speeches to that effect (I include several below).

The other was a cross-party proposal from Lis Goddard, agreed with Helen King, aiming to bring the fruitful learning of the ‘Leicester’ discussion groups into the proposed working groups. No sooner had Lis proposed this, than Helen King misused a point of order to deny her support for it! It was a clear sign that even the minimum of collaboration is not politically expedient for revisionists.

But we had been told ahead of time that that House of Bishops, having painfully thrashed this motion out as the only way forward for them, would resist every amendment—and the procedure of calling for a ‘vote by Houses’ meant that they effectively had a veto, and used it fairly consistently. I did wonder whether some of the revisionist bishops would break ranks, and perhaps vote for one of the revisionist amendments, but a maximum of six out of the 38 or so present did so.

It was clear that the revisionists really did not want to vote for the unamended motion, because it said clearly that LLF had ended. But if they voted it down, they would also be voted down clause (d) offering a chink of light of continued discussion, so they held their noses and voted ‘for’. Orthodox felt similarly ambivalent for the opposite reasons, and in the end some voted for (drawing a line under LLF) and others voted against (because we don’t want further damaging discussion).

Read it all.

Campaigners with contrasting views of Living in Love and Faith (#LLF) have responded to the General Synod’s decision on the process after last week’s five-hour debate on a motion from the Archbishop of York.

Read more below 👇 #GeneralSynod #churchnewshttps://t.co/wdaGVd4zjI

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) February 16, 2026

‘There are three ideas currently supported by those in the Church of England who take a liberal approach to marriage and sexual activity (including members of the House of Bishops) and which are being pushed as part of the Prayers of Love and Faith process that cannot rightly be seen as a development of the Church of England’s doctrine…

The first idea is that it would be right to bless same-sex couples who are in a sexually active relationship either in normal church services or in special ‘standalone’ or ‘bespoke’ services.

The reason that this would not be a development of doctrine is that the doctrine of the Church of England, as we have seen, is that all forms of sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage are forms of the sin of fornication which all Christians are called to avoid committing (and for which those Christians who have committed it are called to repent, confess and receive absolution as they would with all other forms of sin). It is not an explanation of the Church’s doctrine on this matter to say that those who continue to be in a relationship involving the sin of fornication should be able to have this relationship blessed by the Church. Rather, saying this would contradict the Church’s doctrine in one of two ways. It would involve saying either (a) that fornication is not a sin or (b) that sin does not need to be met with a call to repentance, confession, absolution and amendment of life but can instead be the object of prayers of blessing.

The second idea is that those who are in same-sex sexual relationships should be admitted to, or allowed to continue to exercise, ordained ministry.

The reason that this would not be a development of doctrine is that the Church of England’s doctrine, as set out in the 1662 Ordinal is that it is an integral part of the calling of those who are ordained to be: ‘diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ.’  It is not an explanation of the Church’s doctrine to say that being in a same-sex sexual relationship is compatible with providing a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ. As in the previous example, it would instead contradict the Church’s doctrine by in this case suggesting either (a) that being in a same-sex sexual relationship is in accordance with ‘the doctrine of Christ’ or (b) that the requirements for ministerial conduct set out in the Ordinal no longer matter.

The third idea is that the Church of England should accept that marriage can rightly be between two people of the same sex as well as two people of the opposite sex. This again would not be an explanation of the Church ‘s doctrine, but rather a contradiction of it. One cannot say both that ‘The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and life-long, for better or worse, till death do them on the part of one man and one woman’ and also say that a relationship between two people of the same-sex is a marriage. The only way one can consistently say that a relationship between two-people of the same-sex is a marriage is if one has a different understanding of the nature of marriage. The idea that a doctrine of marriage that teaches that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex could be ‘spacious’ enough (as the bishops put it) to include same-sex relationships simply does not make sense.

What all this means is that the development of doctrine, rightly understood, rules out rather than permits these innovations which liberals wish to introduce, and which members of the House of Bishops are proposing.

Read it all.

How can we know what God is like and what his will is for our lives? Dr. Martin Davie, author and Anglican theologian, will explain how a careful reading of one of the Thirty-Nine Articles can provide us with answers. Register for this free event at https://t.co/2GO6OL0uPr. pic.twitter.com/Q5GTHbbswA

— Trinity Anglican Seminary (@TASeminary) September 6, 2024

“CEEC’s conviction is that this cannot be done without a differentiated arrangement. We hope and pray that the House of Bishops will welcome such a discussion in order that a way can be found to resolve this ongoing and fractious disagreement.”

Read it all.

https://t.co/c13ohQ33Or

— George Conger (@GeorgeConger8) February 13, 2026

the new Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Sarah Mullally said,

“I do believe it proposes a sensible way forward that provides us with a structured framework that I believe will take us to the next steps.”

Like them, the vast majority of bishops are committed to change. They too want to move “forward” and “take the next steps”. The ‘letter to the Church’, that accompanies the motion that General Synod passed, made that very clear – as this blog wrote when it was published:

1) The House of Bishops are, above all else, committed to “walking together”.

2) The House of Bishops continue to commend the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF).

3) The House of Bishops only apologise for the pain caused by them by not moving further, faster.

4) The only discipline proposed by the House of Bishops for those who infringe their guidance is ‘informal’ and possibly ‘optional’.

5) The only criticism is for those who have taken a stand against the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith

6) As the LLF process draws to a close, another process begins.

The Revd Will Pearson Gee used an analogy about a train that had stopped because the tracks ahead were dangerous – “Then,” he said,” it became apparent that the train was going to be repainted, and a new logo painted on the side. The hurt and angry passengers were told the old train had in fact become a new one and would be proceeding with little delay.”

The Church of England has not abandonded proposals for same-sex blessings – they are already commended in churches and cathedrals up and down the land. All they have done is splashed some paint around and changed the logo, in order to try to find a way of moving forward with as little delay as possible.

Read it all.

Contrary to the view of @BBCNews there seems to be little evidence that @synod has "abandoned proposals for same-sex blessing ceremonies". https://t.co/YzIrx6MSV5

— Anglican Futures (@AnglicanFutures) February 13, 2026

Laura Oliver (Blackburn) complained that her perspective, as an LGBTQ person who held onto traditional teaching on marriage and sex, had been too often absent from the LLF process. “My efforts to live a life as a treasured child of God, rejoicing in a life of singleness as modelled by Jesus himself, have been undermined and diminished,” she said.

Dr Ros Clarke (Lichfield) attempted to amend the motion to make the House of Bishops apologise for not heeding legal advice. Until there was some “confession and repentance”, she said, the hierarchy could not lead the Church into “forgiveness and reconciliation”.

Others questioned why the Church was about to embark on another round of divisive discussions on sexuality via the new working groups, when this might produce the “same bitter fruit” as the LLF project.

The Revd Mike Smith (Chester) said that LLF had to be stopped before it was reborn under a new acronym which would resume the “interminable escalator” and further poison relationships within the Church.

But the bishops were mostly united in their determination to both turn the page on LLF, and to continue conversations under new auspices.

Read it all.

The national director of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), the Revd John Dunnett, has resigned as an honorary canon of Chelmsford Cathedral over the decision to use prayers of blessing for same-sex couples at cathedral services.

Mr Dunnett was one of more than 150 signatories to a letter sent last November, after the cathedral’s decision to use the Prayers of Love and Faith was announced. The decision, they wrote, left them “feeling disenfranchised from the life and worship of the Cathedral”.

The other signatories have not been made public, but Mr Dunnett said that they comprise priests, churchwardens, PCC members, and diocesan-synod members.

The letter called on the Dean, the Very Revd Dr Jessica Martin, and the Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, to reconsider the decision — “and hopefully reverse it”. In a reply sent last month, the Bishop and Dean declined to do so, Mr Dunnett said.

Read it all.

The national director of the #ChurchofEngland Evangelical Council (CEEC), the Revd John Dunnett, has resigned as an honorary canon of #ChelmsfordCathedral over the decision to use prayers of blessing for #samesex couples at #cathedral services#churchnewshttps://t.co/U4zeRkVKn0

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) February 4, 2026

Just over two years ago, an Anglican Futures blogger adopted the concept of the ‘Travelator’ as a way of explaining how the process of changing the Church of England’s practice and teaching about sexual relationships works.

The blog explained how David Porter, the then Archbishop of Canterbury’s Strategy Consultant, ensured that the process would itself become the outcome, by legitimising the questions being asked and preventing any ‘end point’, other than the introduction of blessings and/or same-sex marriage, with the expectation that those who disagree are required to ‘walk together’/ ‘agree to disagree’.

Just like a Travelator – once the first step is taken, there is no way off.

Today, however, some are suggesting that the House of Bishops’ latest statement represents a reversal of the Travelator. If this were true it would be a cause for great rejoicing amongst orthodox Anglicans throughout the Anglican Communion.

In contrast, this blog sets out 6 reasons why the most recent missive from the House of Bishops is a very clear indicator that the Travelator is still doing its work, inching forward and carrying all in the Church of England along with it, whether or not they approve of the destination.

Just over two years ago, an Anglican Futures blogger adopted the concept of the ‘Travelator’ as a way of explaining how the process of changing the Church of England’s practice and teaching about sexual relationships works.

The blog explained how David Porter, the then Archbishop of Canterbury’s Strategy Consultant, ensured that the process would itself become the outcome, by legitimising the questions being asked and preventing any ‘end point’, other than the introduction of blessings and/or same-sex marriage, with the expectation that those who disagree are required to ‘walk together’/ ‘agree to disagree’.

Just like a Travelator – once the first step is taken, there is no way off.

Today, however, some are suggesting that the House of Bishops’ latest statement represents a reversal of the Travelator. If this were true it would be a cause for great rejoicing amongst orthodox Anglicans throughout the Anglican Communion.

In contrast, this blog sets out 6 reasons why the most recent missive from the House of Bishops is a very clear indicator that the Travelator is still doing its work, inching forward and carrying all in the Church of England along with it, whether or not they approve of the destination.

Read it all.

A much needed dose of realism from @AnglicanFutures concerning the PLF process. Some will say the reality on the ground will, in fact, be worse https://t.co/Lezo9qf2HW

— Dan Leafe (@DanLeafe1) January 16, 2026

In a statement issued on Wednesday afternoon, the Bishops acknowledged that their decisions will be “the cause of profound anguish to many LGBTQI+ people and their allies”, and that it “leaves some important questions unresolved”.

The statement confirms decisions taken by the House of Bishops in October, to subject stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples and the reconsideration of rules that bar the clergy from entering into same-sex marriage to further synodical processes (News, 17 October).

After heavy criticism (News 24 October and 30 October) and lobbying (News, 12 December and 19/26 December), from both sides of the debate, the Bishops met again in December, when they opted to defer the final decision until their meeting on Wednesday of this week (News, 19/26 December).

A working group will now consider how legislative steps on clergy same-sex marriage and stand-alone services could be taken forward, and consult on what “pastoral episcopal provision” might be appropriate if any further changes are proposed. This new group will, the statement says, report to General Synod by November 2028.

Read it all.

The Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process will come to an “imperfect” and “untidy” end in February, the House of Bishops has said#samesexblessings #churchofengland #churchnews #churchtimes #Synodhttps://t.co/U994MD89i4

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) January 14, 2026

Delay to the House of Bishops’ final decision on the next steps in the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process (News, 16 December) has been criticised by campaigners on both sides of the argument.

The national director of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), Canon John Dunnett, said that the statement issued by Church House on Tuesday “reads like an admission of ‘Groundhog Day’.”

LLF was “eroding the collegiality of the House of Bishops and their ability to lead”, he said, and called for the Bishops to “either halt the project” or reconsider proposals for structural changes to the Church of England.

A form of “delegated episcopal ministry” to provide reassurance to opponents of the changes brought by LLF were rejected by the Bishops at their meeting in October (News, 15 October, 17 October).

Read it all.

The delay to the House of Bishops’ final decision on the next steps in the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process has been criticised by campaigners on both sides of the argument#llf #sexuality #samesexmarriage #churchnews #churchtimes https://t.co/8cQdJOMkVf

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) December 22, 2025

It is not my habit to comment on the contents of sermons in this blog. However, the Dean of St Edmundsbury, The Very Reverend Joe Hawes, used his sermon at St Edmundsbury Cathedral last Sunday to comment on the Living in Love and Faith process[1] and it seemed to me to be important not to let the points he made about this subject go unchallenged.

The Dean makes five points in relation to the LLF process, and I shall consider each of them in turn.

The first point he makes is that he feels able to affirm:

‘… with heartfelt certainty, that although I get it wrong pretty regularly and need to hearken to the Baptist’s cry to repent, who I am in my creation, is essentially what God intended. That I am not an aberration, a mistake on God’s part, but, like all of you, a gift from God, and trying in my life, to be a gift back to God through loving service.’

The question that this statement raises is who the Dean thinks God created him to be. If he means that his creation as a male human being made in the image and likeness of God is willed by God and is ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31), I don’t think that there is anybody in the Church of England, even those who the Dean calls ‘hard line fundamentalists,’ who would disagree with him.

If, however, what the Dean means is that he was created by God to be a gay man then there would be many who would rightly disagree with him. This because, to quote Sean Doherty (who is himself same-sex attracted):

‘God did not create straight women, straight men, gay women and gay men. God created two sexes, with the capacity to relate to one another sexually.’ [2]

This truth is taught in the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 and, as Paul notes in Romans 1:26-27, it is also taught by nature in the sense that the observation of human biology teaches us that human beings have bodies that are designed to engage into the kind of ‘one flesh’ sexual union with a member of the opposite sex that has the capacity to produce offspring.

In the light of this truth the Pauline teaching that same-sex sexual attraction and the same-sex sexual activity that results from it are a result of the Fall makes perfect sense. If human beings are created to have sex with members of the opposite sex, it follows that desires and actions that are contrary to this must be seen not as a reflection of God’s original creative intention, but as a result of the distortion of the created order consequent upon demonic and human rebellion against God.

Read it all.

I have just published a new blog post, 'Why the cupboard is bare – a response to the reflections of the Dean of St Edmundsbury'https://t.co/fzxq2YZ4wr

— Martin Davie (@MartinBDavie) December 13, 2025

 “Where among our bishops, are those with the courage to act from love?” the Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Mandy Ford, asked on Sunday, as the House of Bishops prepares to finalise decisions on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process.

She joined the Dean of St Edmundsbury, the Very Revd Joe Hawes, who — alongside organisations campaigning for greater inclusivity for LGBTQ+ people — last week called on the Bishops to change their minds (News, 11 December).

On Tuesday, the Bishops are due to confirm decisions announced in October, which would effectively forestall the introduction of stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples and maintain the current ban on clergy entering same-sex civil marriages (News, 17 October).

Read it all.

Temperature rises ahead of Bishops’ formal vote to put the brakes on same-sex marriage https://t.co/Wjh3LQN2up

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) December 15, 2025

The House of Bishops will make a final decision on the future of standalone same-sex blessings when it meets again on December 16 but Bishop Philip Mounstephen said the theological and legal advice made clear that any changes will need to be “done properly according to the norms of our governance”.

Addressing a recent meeting of the Winchester Diocesan Synod, Bishop Philip Mounstephen said that questions over how such changes could be made without changing the official doctrine of the Church of England – which upholds marriage between a man and woman – proved to be “the game changer”. 

He said the theological and legal advice had brought the House of Bishops “face to face with the sheer constitutional difficulty of making such changes”.

Read it all.

The Bishop of Winchester has defended the recent decision of the House of Bishops to pause plans to introduce standalone same-sex blessing services https://t.co/OD99QBXeo5 #anglican #bishops #anthropology #parishministry #ethics #21stc #pastoralpractice #doctrine

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) December 8, 2025

Orthodox Anglicans have accused bishops in the Church in Wales of “misleading” statements as it moves towards making same-sex blessings permanent. 

Bishops in the Church in Wales have published a ‘road map’ for the future of same-sex blessings following a four-year trial and a six-month consultation with clergy and parishioners.

During the trial period, same-sex couples in a civil partnership or marriage were allowed to come to Church in Wales churches with friends and family to receive a blessing.

The bishops said that the Church is reaching the point “where it must take major decisions on these matters”. 

In a pastoral letter to Church in Wales members, the bishops said that “most” responses to the consultation were “in favour of the view that the time is right to offer equal marriage to traditional and same sex couples”.

Read it all.

Church in Wales 'road map' for same-sex blessings is 'distressing' https://t.co/0eujIwhx2e

— Christian Today (@ChristianToday) December 3, 2025

From there.

The House of Bishops will be meeting this month, amongst other things to confirm the course of action outlined in the statement made in October about the Prayers of Love and Faith.

There will, no doubt, be pressure from some to row back on these proposals. As the Church Times reports, the Bishop of Chelmsford has publicly stated her bitter regret at what was agreed, and Lincoln Diocesan Synod has called for the bishops to reverse it.

Although the supporting paperwork and the original statement suggest that it would be very difficult for them to do so, we should not underestimate the strength of feeling some will bring to this debate.

Please continue to pray that they will live up to their calling as shepherds and overseers of God’s flock.

Lincoln diocesan synod has called on the House of Bishops to “proceed at pace” to implement stand-alone blessing services for #samesex coupleshttps://t.co/ThKnbVlTYp

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) November 27, 2025

The advice from the Legal Office is that changing this would involve several pieces of legislation to change multiple canons, change the Book of Common Prayer, overrule ecclesiastical common law, and even “repealing references to dominical teaching” from Canon B30. In other words, if we want to change what we teach about marriage, we can’t even say that our teaching is based on the teaching of Christ. That’s how far this departs from our current teaching. Is it any wonder that the bishops are saying in the subtext that none of them even wants to attempt this legislative package?

The other route examined whether bishops could grant a canonical dispensation to allow such marriages. This would be akin to the existing power in Canon C4.5 to allow the ordination of those who are divorced and remarried whilst their former spouse still lives. The comparison is not straightforward, however, as the “[e]xisting powers of canonical dispensation do not permit the doing of things which are contrary to the Church’s doctrine; they permit doing things which are not normally permitted as being contrary to good order or that otherwise require regulation. To provide for a power of dispensation to permit the doing of something that was contrary to doctrine would be a novel departure in canon law of the Church of England” (p.68). It would stretch things so far as to break the internal consistency of the canons.

Finally, the paper addresses the same question as that addressed above in the FAOC papers: whether bishops could choose to turn a blind eye to clergy and ordinands in same-sex marriages. Whilst bishops have a large degree of latitude and discretion, they are not permitted to simply do whatever they want. “What it plainly is not lawfully open to a bishop to do is to declare that no clergy in his or her diocese will face discipline if they enter into a same sex marriage. First, such a statement would amount to an abrogation of the bishop’s canonical duties… Secondly, it is not even in the bishop’s gift to grant such a dispensation.”

Now that we have the full content of the theological and legal papers, it is quite easy to see why the House of Bishops made the decision that they made in October to stop trying to shove everything through by episcopal fiat. Those of us opposed to the whole project have been saying for years now that they can’t do what they’re attempting to do, and they certainly can’t do it in the way they’ve been attempting to do it. These papers only confirm what we’ve been saying all along.

Read it all.

Why can't we have the Prayers of Love and Faith after all? A look at the theological and legal papershttps://t.co/9CVcoP0m4p

— Michael Hayden (@michael__hayden) November 7, 2025

The Bishops decided that there must be further synodical processes for stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples and for reconsideration of the bar on clerics’ entering into same-sex marriages.

“Episcopal authority has never been weaker since the 17th Century,” wrote the Rector of St Giles’s, Newcastle-under-Lyme, with Butterton, the Revd Joshua Penduck, in a blog post. He suggested that there had been a lack of due process, attributable to “stupidity”, a “rush to create a new settlement”, and “a lack of honesty about what such a process could achieve”.

“The fact that the legal advice has only just been released is a mark of how needlessly painful the process has been,” he wrote. LLF had benefited nobody: neither the LGBTQ+ community nor conservatives who were “weary, exhausted and feeling vulnerable”. “There is now less cohesion in the Church of England than ever before.”

Bishops had “come to sound less like episcopal centres of unity and more like powerful activists”, he suggested.

Read it all.

The Church of England’s #LLF process, begun more than eight years ago in hopes of achieving a consensus on sexuality, has come under fire from both progressive and conservative quarters after the decisions taken at the recent House of Bishops meetinghttps://t.co/DUCoo1dBDO

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 30, 2025

In the document, published on the diocese of Guildford’s website last week, Bishop Watson suggests that the decision not to use Canon B2 to introduce services of blessing for same-sex couples, but instead to allow their introduction after simple majority votes in the Houses of the General Synod, has caused several problems.

The most significant, he writes, is that “we have bypassed a serious attempt to discern the mind of the Church . . . so dramatically raising the theological and emotional stakes.”

Bishop Watson refers to a paper published by the Church’s Faith and Order Commission, which says that there is no agreement on the nature of the disagreement between those who support changes and those who oppose them. Many, Bishop Watson writes, believe that the disagreement is about “the role of scripture in shaping our theology, liturgy and daily life”.

Read it all (registration or subscription).

“Integrity” has been “trumped by expediency” in the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process, the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, has saidhttps://t.co/p463Nl4rR2

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) May 7, 2025

Bell then comments:

‘Such a vision of unity is surely what must lie at the heart of any theological vision for the Anglican Communion. The gift of unity, intertwined with truth and holiness, empowered and initiated through and by love, flowing from its Trinitarian source, and finding its visibility not only in our structures and institutions but in our relationships and lives of Christian service, witness mission. Unity as gift and imperative sits above our disagreements requiring us not to contort ourselves into pseudo- agreement, but instead to recognise that metaphysical unity precedes our disagreements and will be revealed in different visible ways as we journey on together.’ (p.191)

What conservative Anglicans would want to say in response to these paragraphs is that Archbishop Rowan is right to say that the unity that all true Christians possess is the ‘pure gift’ of  ‘being summoned and drawn into the same place before the Father’s throne.’ However, they would want to add that this pure gift also includes a summons to ‘bear much fruit’ (John 15:8) or in other words to begin to live a new life enabled by the Holy Spirit which fulfils God’s intentions for his human creatures. In addition they would want to say that according to the witness of Scripture, and the uniform tradition of the Christian Church based on Scripture, living this new life involves living as the men and women God created us to be and observing a strict sexual ethic involving sexual faithfulness within (heterosexual) marriage and sexual abstinence outside it.  

Because they would want to say this, they would also want to say that unity is broken not only when Christians are not ‘able to see in each other the same kind of conviction of being called by authoritative voice into a place where none of us has an automatic right to stand,’ but also when they are not able to see in each other a recognition of God’s call to bear fruit in the ways just described. They would also add that this is what is currently the case in the Anglican Communion and in the Church of England.

In response to Bell’s comments conservative Anglicans  would agree that unity is both a gift and an imperative and would also agree that it is ‘revealed in different visible ways.’ However, they would say that these ways have to include Christians living as the men and women God created them to be and observing the Christian sexual ethic as outlined above.

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

Patterson is correct when he says that process set out in Canon B2 provides the opportunity for General Synod to approve liturgical texts after agreeing that they do not depart from the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter. This does not mean, however, as Patterson suggests, that the decisions to ordain women as priests and bishops and the decision to permit the re-marriage of divorcees in church did not involve changes in doctrine. They clearly did, in that they involved the Church of England accepting that something was permissible which it had previously said was impermissible. The reordering of the Church of England’s common life that took place was a consequence of this change of doctrine. However, General Synod took the view that this change of doctrine was not in conflict with the doctrine found in the Articles, Prayer Book and Ordinal, and on that basis said that both this change, and the reordering of the Church’s life that flowed from it, were acceptable.

In similar fashion Synod could decide to permit same-sex marriages on the grounds that they were not contrary to what is taught by the Articles, the Prayer Book and the 1662 Ordinal and that therefore changing the Church’s teaching to allow these things to take place would be a legitimate thing to do. However, it would need to show good grounds for making this decision and this would be impossibly difficult to do given that the Prayer Book marriage service is absolutely clear that marriage was ordained by God to be between two people of the opposite sex and that ‘so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their matrimony lawful.’

Fourthly, Patterson declares concerning the Prayers of Love and Faith commended by the House of Bishops in December 2023 for use in regular services:

‘I agree that they are not a change in doctrine, but they are a change. In response to the legalisation of civil partnerships in 2005, the then House of Bishops declared that ‘clergy…should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership’ and on the introduction of same-sex marriage in 2014, repeated the instruction,  ‘Services of blessing should not be provided.’ Whereas now they have very clearly commended a set of prayers that may be used with those who have formed a civil partnership or same-sex marriage.’

Read it all.

Martin Davie–'The…problem with this statement is that the idea that the Church of England does not have a ‘straightforward statement of doctrine’ is simply untrue. The Church of England does have a straightforward statement of its doctrine, and this is found in the Thirty Nine… pic.twitter.com/8jtUCwrQDb

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) November 21, 2024

What can we say about The Widening of God’s Mercy?

 In the light of the points noted in the course of this review we have to say that Chris and Richard Hays do not offer a persuasive argument in The Widening of God’s Mercy.

They do not show that the biblical laws were revised or that different laws contradict one another.

They fail to recognise that in Isaiah 2 and 56 the advent of universal peace and the inclusion of foreigners and eunuchs is dependent on the nations and particular individuals submitting to God’s law

They fail to show that God changes his mind and admits to having given his people bad laws.

They fail to show that John 16 talks about further revelation through the Spirit that supersedes biblical teaching.  

Finally, they fail to show that rules, boundaries and theologies are rethought in the Bible, they misrepresent the thought of Karl Barth, they say that LGBTQ people need to be included when the New Testament says that they already are, and they fail to distinguish between welcoming people and affirming their behaviour.  

Read it all.

Here's my review of Richard & Christopher Hays' new book "The Widening of God's Mercy" for @TGC.
They haven't found new evidence that changes what the Bible says about same-sex sex. They're offering a sub-theistic view of God to justify their conclusions.https://t.co/17acFfKTHI

— Rebecca McLaughlin (@RebeccMcLaugh) August 29, 2024

In a significant interview on the Rest is Politics Podcast England’s Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, has denied the teaching of the Bible, and the teaching of his church. 

It is Archbishop Welby’s most public betrayal of his ordination and consecration vow to ‘banish error and to uphold and defend the truth taught in Scripture.’

Archbishop Welby’s comments came on the eve of an important House of Bishops meeting in the UK, which considered a request from a group called The Alliance, consisting of 2360 clergy whose churches represent 42% of the Church of England’s Sunday attendance, and who hold to the Bible’s teaching on sexuality.

Please watch it all:

Note especially these sections–

“…the conservatives, the Bible people and the traditional Catholics won’t come under the jurisdiction, or if you like the false teaching bishops, but will come under a separate Province, separate episcopacy…” and that  “…first order difference requires first order differentiation…”

As well as

“… there’s still ongoing discussion- like the House of Bishops have always said we’ll need to give some kind of provision for those who in conscience can’t go along with this, but that process has really not got anywhere so even though we’re still charging down the direction of blessing for same sex unions a clear trajectory towards same sex marriage for clergy and standalone services, kind of pseudo-marriage services for same sex couples we’ve not had any real details about settlement and some kind of offer.”

“And anything that’s been on the table that the Bishops have discussed has been very much of a second order, so basically they’ve dismissed it. Many have said ‘look you don’t really represent very many, it’s just a few leaders and most people don’t really like this. You’re going to get much, much less, if anything it will be second order differentiation, so I don’t think they’ve really heard how many of us are out there and how seriously we hold this. We can’t accept less than we’re asking for.”

And, finally, this in reference to the completely avoidable and disastrous TEC situation:

“Some of us have been saying ‘look across the Atlantic – we’ve got to avoid an Episcopal style train crash which has led to a complete split with… a very large grouping of Orthodox Anglicans who are no completely separate from the Episcopal church and the cost has been massive emotionally, spiritually, missionally and there’s been to many who said that would never happen here but actually there’s a stronger Orthodox grouping here in the Church of England..” [hat tip: Anglican Futures]

Since February last year, his position has implicitly shifted. For he has remained in post, as Synod has introduced a new policy, that the Church may bless same-sex couples. The evangelicals see this as undermining the traditional teaching. No, Welby and most of the other bishops have said, there is no planned change to the doctrine of marriage. But the evangelicals are obviously right that the innovation implies the acceptability of gay relationships. The archbishop of York has said that sex is permissible in stable relationships, straight or gay. This is the reformist position, seemingly held by most of the senior bishops.

Astonishingly, Welby has now said the same thing.

Read it all.

Justin Welby has made a huge shift on homosexuality https://t.co/N3wr9IBaba

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) October 28, 2024

Two Church of England pressure groups wrote to the House of Bishops before its meeting this week to express hopes and expectations about the next steps in the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process.

The groups—Together for the Church of England, which campaigns for wider provision for LGBTQ people in the Church, and the Alliance, which represents opponents of the proposed blessings of same-sex couples—wrote the letters at the invitation of the House of Bishops, before there meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday this week.

The letter from Together’s chairs, Canon Neil Patterson and Professor Helen King, highlights that the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) for same-sex couples are being used. It describes this as a “small step towards redeeming the decades of exclusion and hurt felt by LGBTQ+ people from the Church of England”, and welcomes a decision the General Synod’s decision in July to proceed with stand-alone services of blessing (News, 12 July).

Read it all.

Two Church of England pressure groups wrote to the House of Bishops before its meeting this week to express hopes and expectations about the next steps in the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) processhttps://t.co/FqMp48irSn

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

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

The Anglican Church of Australia (ACA) would “automatically” cease to be in communion with the Church of England if the Appellate Tribunal determined that the C of E was “inconsistent” with the Australian Church’s “Fundamental Declarations”, a report to the Sydney synod by the diocese’s doctrine commission suggests.

The Appellate Tribunal is the church’s highest court, and the Archbishop of Sydney, the Most Revd Kanishka Raffel, is a tribunal member.

The report says that the Church of England could be ruled “inconsistent” if it “rejected the scriptures as ‘the ultimate rule and standard of faith’ or if they ceased to ‘obey the commands of Christ and teach his doctrine’”.

The ACA, the report continues, “has no legal power to declare whether it is in or out of communion with any other Church in the [Anglican] Communion, other than the Church of England. Nevertheless, serious breaches of gospel communion do exist within the Anglican Communion, and ‘impaired communion’ or ‘broken communion’ accurately describes this doctrinal reality.”

Read it all.

Sydney diocese report warns of ‘impaired communion’ with Church of England https://t.co/NdVQObNCNP

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) September 6, 2024

We request all the faithful in the GSFA to uphold our faithful brothers and sisters in the Church of England, bishops, clergy and laity, who have come together as ‘The Alliance’. We stand with them in the struggle that lies ahead as they seek to establish a new Province of the Church of England that will enable them to continue their witness to Jesus with integrity and freedom.

Despite the continued opposition of almost 50% of the Synod, the bishops of the Church of England have now succeeded in gaining support for services of blessing for same sex couples and the endorsement of a timetable to enable clergy to enter into same sex marriages.

With heavy hearts we see with increasing clarity that they will not be deterred from taking a path which is entirely contrary to the teaching of our Lord as held universally by the Christian Churches for two millennia and that they will continue regardless of the hurt and dismay suffered by faithful Churches of the Global South.

This latest development serves to illustrate the new reality that we felt compelled to articulate in the GSFA Ash Wednesday Statement of Feb 20th last year. The Church of England, has set itself to cement its departure from the historic faith by liturgical change. There can therefore now be no doubt that the Mother Church of the Communion has forfeited her leadership role in the global Communion and that the legacy ‘instruments of unity’, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other instruments over which he presides, (the Primates Meeting, the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council) are all compromised.

Read it all.

Congratulations to Archbishop Justin Badi Arama who was enthroned as Archbishop of South Sudan this weekend!

We pray that God will use him to uphold the authority of scripture and the true gospel of Jesus Christ in South Sudan and beyond. pic.twitter.com/hxEWNPx93O

— GAFCON (@gafconference) April 25, 2018