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

Together for the Church of England, an organisation that speaks for a number of groups promoting LGBTQ+ inclusion, welcomed the vote, and pledged to continue engaging in the process of refining the detail of the proposals.

The statement expressed hope that those who opposed the changes would likewise continue to engage “with honesty and kindness, as they have so far, in order that we may seek together for the welfare of the whole Church of England”.

By contrast, the national director of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), Canon John Dunnett, said on Tuesday that it was “deeply disappointing” that the motion had been passed, “despite hearing repeatedly in speeches of the need to build trust by avoiding bad process, and CEEC’s continued advocacy of the insufficiency of delegated arrangements”.

Read it all.

Two prominent umbrella groups have given their response to the General Synod’s decision to endorse plans for stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples and delegate episcopal ministry for opponents to the changes https://t.co/VMuOfV8Yvz

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) July 10, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

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

Bishop of Bath and Wells – Against the motion

“For many, it is the absence of such clarity that is causing such rage and distrust around our process. Now I know there is colossal pressure to get the Prayers of Love and Faith done. With all of us here, I would love us to be able to to move on to something else, but we know, from our national life, where a desire quickly to cut to the end of a process gets us. Until the doctrinal work is undertaken this motion is not oven-ready.”

Rev Aneal Appadoo (UKME co-opted) – Against the motion

“We have rigorous processes for Synod, which are right and build trust and enable trust to thrive among us, even when things look dishonest. What was revealed on Saturday night was that the House of Bishops have, at best, been playing fast and loose with our processes, and, at worst, and I pray not, been intentionally deceiving this Synod. For the sake of trust and the unity of this chamber and the Communion, which I love, I urge the Synod to vote against this motion. As has devestatingly been reported the processes have not been followed and I for one feel like I’ve been tricked.”

Bishop of London – For the motion

“We talk a lot about the need to do more theology, and that is not a bad thing, however let us be honest that at times it can be a displacement activity – and the truth is we will not all agree once the theology is done. Maybe, we would be wiser to put our theology to work, regardless of our theology of marriage or sexuality. We should put it to work sothat we can create a household of faith which is not homophobic, which is not misogynistic, which is not racist, or misuses power. Because, of course, theology is not just about words it is about our deeds.”

Rev Brenda Wallace (Chelmsford) – For the motion

“Let’s not get so tied up in law and doctrine that we lose sight of the people who are at the heart of our discussions. And let’s have the generosity to reach out with Christ’s loving arms and embrace them with love and faith. We ‘ve talked a lot about trust, so let’s move forward with trust that our God of Love loves all God’s children and wants them to live in relationships which are lifegiving, life enhancing and blessed by God and by the church.”

Read it all.

The fully updated summary of yesterday's LLF debate with analysis to follow https://t.co/oi8hmrRlGn

— Anglican Futures (@AnglicanFutures) July 9, 2024

Proposals to remove impediments on the use of new blessings for same-sex couples in stand-alone services, along with the provision of delegated episcopal ministry for those who oppose the changes, were shown a pale green light from the General Synod on Monday afternoon….

A notable opponent of the motion was the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, who has previously voted for LLF motions and supported an amendment in November last year calling for stand-alone services to be trialled (News, 17 November 2023).

He was voting against the motion this time, he said, because he felt that it was necessary to do more work on questions about whether doctrine was being changed by the introduction of services that some feared would resemble weddings.

Read it all.

A warning of a “de facto ‘parallel Province’” in the Church of England has been given in a letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York from the Alliance, an umbrella group that emerged last year. It comprises the leaders of groups, Catholic and Evangelical, that are concerned about the effect of the Living in Love and Faith outcome on C of E teaching on marriage.

The letter, signed by current and former Vicars of Holy Trinity, Brompton, and the National Leader of New Wine, among others, warns that, if proposals to enable stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples go ahead, “we will have no choice but rapidly to establish what would in effect be a new de facto ‘parallel Province’ within the Church of England and to seek pastoral oversight from bishops who remain faithful to orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality.”

Next month, the General Synod will be asked to vote on a draft motion approving such services, alongside an offer for “delegated episcopal ministry” for opponents (Online News, 21 June). The proposal is “clearly contrary to the canons and doctrine of the Church of England”, the Alliance letter says, citing Canon B30 on marriage.

Read it all.

A warning of a “de facto ‘parallel Province’” in the Church of England has been given in a letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York from the Alliance, an umbrella group that emerged last year. https://t.co/jeVv0VGh7e

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 27, 2024

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

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

Ordinands   I believe it and will so do.

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) June 24, 2024

Reviewing the development of Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) reveals that it demonstrates an even more serious ‘PLF’ problem, one that is evident in other areas of church life as well: Persistent Leadership Failure. It first traces this failure back to the rushed origins of PLF in late 2022 and early 2023.

These resulted in further failures leading to an instability and incoherence which is traced from early 2023 to the present in relation to repeated changes in:

• For whom the prayers are being proposed;
• The theological and legal basis of the prayers;
• The relationship to the church’s supposedly unchanged doctrine where, contrary to the February 2023 Synod motion and the bishops’ original plan, PLF are now acknowledged to be “indicative of a departure from the Church’s doctrine”; and
• The canonical route by which the original proposed PLF are to be introduced. Here nine different stages favouring multiple different paths are summarised culminating in the latest reported “emerging proposal” to introduce standalone services by commending them for use for an experimental period under Canon B5.

This latest proposal has a certain logic as the prohibition on standalone services was an abuse of the House’s power and did not make canonical sense once the substance of the prayers were commended by the bishops for use under Canon B5.

However, there are ten problems with this route, some new but some previously recognised and given as reasons to reject commendation….

Read it all.

In the Church of England's 'Prayers of Love and Faith', does PLF actually stand for Persistent Leadership Failure? Where did the process go so badly wrong, and what are the numerous problems with the current proposals? @simonsarmiento @theologyethics1 https://t.co/P6uq2M6mEF

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) May 29, 2024

Then, as now, the majority of global Anglicans believed that apostolic teaching calls for those engaging in sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage to be loved by the church and called to repent. Without repentance, such a person cannot be considered a “true shepherd” and therefore should be precluded from ordination or consecration. It was, therefore, TEC’s willingness to consecrate a man in a same-sex relationship which tore “the fabric of [the] communion at its deepest level.”

Returning to the events of Saturday 11th May 2024, Bishop Jill Duff told Anglican Futures that she was asked to attend the consecration of Bishop David Morris as a representative of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York…. She was very clear that it was in that capacity, rather than as an honorary assistant bishop in the Church in Wales, that she did so .

This raises a number of issues of national and international significance:

First, this means a bishop of the Church of England was involved in the consecration of a man whose conduct would prevent him from being consecrated as a bishop in the Church of England.

Read it all.

When @AnglicanFutures publishes a piece like this it quickly becomes obvious that the only real sin for @churchofengland bishops is to dissent from the idea that truth is best regarded as being plural. Nearly 3,000 reads shows how wrong that is. https://t.co/Z5hLAuYA8D

— Dan Leafe (@DanLeafe1) May 19, 2024

From there:

There’s a lot of water going under the Living in Love and Faith Bridge right now, including today, the 16th of May, a discussion at the House of Bishops. Whilst we do not know what they will conclude and what therefore will be brought to General Synod in July, it is clear that two things are going to happen. One, that the so-called ‘standalone services’ for blessings of same-sex relationships will be made possible.

And secondly, that, probably by the removal of ‘so-called’ discipline, that clergy in some dioceses are going to be able to marry their same-sex partners. Maybe as soon as this autumn. These are big changes, and I think it’s fairly clear that they are indeed indicative of a change of doctrine.

John Dunnett named new national director of the Church of England Evangelical Councilhttps://t.co/jjh3UMgwTm pic.twitter.com/YTRYb1tAkq

— Anglican Ink (@anglicanink) May 9, 2023

In answers to British magazine Evangelicals Now, Rico Tice underlined that it is “vital” form him to express a “clear separation from a church that no longer affirms Biblical orthodoxy, especially with regard to preaching repentance”.

The fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury had not given “a substantive response” to the call by Rico Tice and others to “resist the influence of cultural values when they are in opposition to those of the Bible” led him to this decision.

The author and evangelist described himself as “a cradle-to-grave Anglican” who identifies most with Anglicans in the Global South when it comes to the authority of the Bible.

Anglican Communion movements such as Gafcon and GSAFC have been very critical with what they understand as a shift in Christian doctrine of the Church of England on issues like human identity, sexuality and marriage.

Read it all.

The well-known author of ‘Christianity Explored’ says he has not received “a substantive response” from the Archbishop on where the Church stands on issues of marriage and sexuality. https://t.co/SqtgG7QbVA

— Evangelical Focus (@Evan_Focus) April 29, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

— Martin Davie (@MartinBDavie) March 11, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) May 30, 2019

Early in 2023, the Anglicans in England approved liturgical prayers at same-sex civil marriages, while not permitting same-sex marriages in the Church of England itself. This led to a decision by Anglican archbishops in the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) to break off communion with Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.

The bishops of the Global South Fellowship said that they are “no longer able to recognize” Welby as “first among equals,” because the Church of England’s General Synod made decisions that “run contrary to the faith and order of the orthodox provinces in the communion whose people constitute the majority in the global flock.”

That was one of the most important religious stories of 2023, but it did not get the attention it deserved. Welby serenely crowned King Charles in May as if nothing had changed, even though the Anglican Communion was in tatters and he was left, in effect, leading a small minority of global Anglicans.

Read it all.

Makes the heart sad–A Bleak Year for Christian Unity Concludes| National Catholic Register https://t.co/sPa91150Kz #romancatholic #popefrancis #justinwelby #globalisation #ecumenism #21stc #theology #anthropology #marriage #ethics #globalsouth

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) February 22, 2024

The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, is standing down as one of the co-chairs of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process. She has expressed “serious concerns” about the recent appointment of a new interim theological adviser to the House of Bishops.

In a statement published online on Thursday morning, Dr Hartley said: “It has become clear to me in the last 48 hours that there are serious concerns relating to the recent process of appointing an interim theological adviser to the House of Bishops.”

Dr Hartley and the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, were appointed last November to co-chair the LLF process, and last week wrote an article for the Church Times setting out their hope for a “reset” of the process…

Read it all.

The @BishopNewcastle said that "there are serious concerns relating to the recent process of appointing an interim theological adviser", and that this had a "critically negative impact" on the work she and @SnowMartyn were doing as LLF co-chairs.https://t.co/qdnUoywfGT

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) February 1, 2024

Their intervention represents a shift in HTB leaders’ approach to long-running debates in the Church of England. For many years, HTB has sought to avoid public comment, seeking common ground, emphasising the importance of unity and evangelism, and steering clear of divisive questions. This stance also reflected awareness of differing views among leaders and members. HTB’s 10,000-strong congregations include people in gay relationships, it says.

It remains unclear to what extent the churches in the HTB network share the concerns expressed by the signatories to the Alliance letter. Responses to the Church Times email this week indicate that some undoubtedly do.

In the 6 December letter, the Alliance referred to “a growing number of parishes and clergy that wish to come under our umbrella of partners whilst not being linked to any of the main networks that are represented by the Alliance”.

Read it all.

HTB’s allies alarmed by bid to resist same-sex blessings https://t.co/Fyr0wms75E

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) January 16, 2024

I will take comments on this submitted by email only to KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.

“The bishops have exported this division down to every single local parish”

Two ordained women – Rev Catherine Bond and her partner Rev Jane Pearse – became one of the first same-sex couples to be blessed at a Church of England service, at St John the Baptist Church in Felixstowe yesterday. The couple has reportedly acknowledged that there is still “a lot pain” over the existence of their relationship.

The move to bless same-sex relationships has caused widespread division within the denomination, throughout the seven year process of deliberation and discernment known as ‘Living in Love and Faith’. Conservatives, who believe marriage must be heterosexual, and liberals pressing for change have yet to reach agreement or even a happy compromise.

Dunnett says it remains a highly divisive situation: “You’re going to have fractious debate at parochial church council meetings. You’re going to have vicars having to explain to people why they’re not doing this…

“This is going to be a recipe for distrust. It’s going to bring fracture to relationships that have up to now been good in local parishes.

“Already we’re hearing from clergy person after clergy person and from PCC members in dioceses all over the country that they are fearing what is now going to happen.”

Read it all.