Where we are right now, is not where any of us would like to be.

But I continue to believe that we can find a way of living in love and faith.

Furthermore, I stand by the statements I made in February. There will need to be some sort of provision. But just as the way forward that is being proposed is pastoral, and in my view does not mean a change in the Church of England’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony, so I believe the reassurance and provision that we need should be pastoral. This is why I will be supporting the amendment being put forward by the Bishop of Oxford because, as things stand, I am concerned that clergy using the commended prayers might find themselves vulnerable to a legal challenge if their use of the prayers looks to someone else to be a standalone service.

Something that allows standalone services for an experimental period seems to me to be a sensible and pastoral way forward. It gives clergy and parishes who want to use the Prayers of Love and Faith the legal protection they need. And because this will be on an opt-in basis, clergy and parishes who in good conscience won’t use the prayers will be under no compunction or compulsion so to do, nor will they be disadvantaged in any way by their decision.

We will, of course, need further discussions about how this provision continues to run through all that we are proposing. I’m sure the Bishop of London will say more about this when we get to that bit of our agenda. I also recognise that the pastoral guidance that is such a key component in this work should not be thought of as a fixed entity but a body of guidance that will evolve.

But my purpose in this address is not to anticipate the debate. Rather, it is to ask us to lift our eyes above the debate to see Jesus.

Read it all.

General @Synod for the @churchofengland starts today. Over the next few days, we’ll be debating and voting on a number of important items.

Pray for all involved, that we may come together well and be granted wisdom in our discussions and decisions. 🙏 pic.twitter.com/LHXGGGk9FM

— Archbishop of York (@CottrellStephen) November 13, 2023

10.6 Faced with these problems there would appear to be broadly three (not necessarily mutually exclusive) pathways forward that would have some degree of theological integrity and which might enable the Church of England to proceed in a way that minimises conflict and division and maintains as high a degree of communion as possible in the light of where we now are:

Pausing in order to refine and develop further the theological arguments set out here in Annex H and then seeking a consensus for them in their final articulation as an adequate theological rationale for a form of PLF consistent with them and for new pastoral guidance and pastoral reassurance including any “formal structural pastoral provision in this time of uncertainty” (Introduction, para 18, p.3);
Recognising that for “a time of uncertainty” we have well-established processes in relation to liturgical development and so using Canon B2 (and the need for two-thirds support for any change in all 3 Houses of General Synod at the end of the process) for all of PLF;
Acknowledging that our deeper problem is that the Church has within it two significantly sized groupings divided over whether the existing doctrine is right and should shape our pastoral and liturgical life or is wrong and needs to be replaced with an alternative theology that should then shape our pastoral and liturgical life. Each of these has a clear and internally consistent theological rationale. What is therefore likely needed is not an unsatisfactory and unstable mix of supposed doctrinal continuity but with significant practical changes based on a “new insight into doctrine”. Instead, we need to seek some form of new structural settlement which would give to each of these contrasting and competing theologies their own secure, legally defined and episcopally-led ecclesial space with theological integrity and as high a degree of communion as possible between them within the Church of England.

Read it all.

As General Synod gathers, some thoughts on the theological rationale being offered for PLF with thanks again to @Psephizo for posting. https://t.co/R3RmHgE3pU

— Andrew Goddard (@goddardaj) November 13, 2023

Conscious of the forthcoming meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, the Primates reaffirmed their commitment to the Jerusalem Statement of 2008, which describes Gafcon as ‘a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it.’ The Jerusalem Statement rejects the proposition that authentic Anglicans are only those recognised by the Archbishop of Canterbury. On the contrary, the criteria of Anglican identity are outlined in the fourteen points of the Jerusalem Declaration which continue to define authentic Anglicanism, despite the abandonment of many of these features by those who purport to be Anglicans. We have witnessed over the past twenty-five years the slow, but relentless, moral decay in parts of the Anglican Communion where the world’s values have been endorsed and embraced, replacing the clear teaching of God’s word written.

We continue to affirm that we are not leaving the Anglican Communion. We are delighted to work with the Global South (GSFA) in the task of resetting the Communion, which was foreshadowed in the 2008 Jerusalem Statement, and explicitly declared in the Kigali Commitment of 2023. Given the failure of the so-called Instruments of Communion, we shall not be attending the 2024 Primates Meeting in Rome, convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and encourage all orthodox Primates to join us in this stand against those who support a revisionist agenda.

Furthermore, we encourage Gafcon Provinces to consider withdrawing all links with any English diocese whose bishop supports the proposals, currently before the General Synod,to sanction the blessing of same-sex couples. We also extend the right hand of fellowship to and support all bishops, clergy and laity who oppose these revisionist doctrines and courageously uphold the teaching of Christ on the sanctity of marriage as God has ordained it (Matthew 19:4-6). We especially commend those English bishops who have distanced themselves from the egregious recommendations of the House of Bishops.

Read it all.

The November 20023 Statement From The #Gafcon Primates Council–'Furthermore, we encourage Gafcon Provinces to consider withdrawing all links with any English diocese whose bishop supports the proposals, currently before the General Synod,to sanction the blessing of same-sex…

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) November 15, 2023

A group of 44 bishops made a public statement on Wednesday afternoon expressing their hope that pastoral guidance allowing priests to be in same-sex marriages would be issued “without delay”.

The statement in favour of reform follows three weeks after 12 bishops publicly dissented from a majority decision by the House of Bishops to commend prayers for same-sex couples….

The new group, 15 diocesan bishops and 29 suffragans, write that they “recognise the complexities of the Pastoral Guidance in relation to ministry, and also the need for a swift end to the current uncertainty for LGBTQIA+ clergy and ordinands.

“We look forward to Guidance being issued without delay that includes the removal of all restrictions on clergy entering same-sex civil marriages, and on bishops’ ordaining and licensing such clergy, as well as granting permissions to officiate.”Read it all (registration or subscription).

Don’t delay guidance allowing priests to be in same-sex marriages, say 44 bishops https://t.co/81hu1fsLkH

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) November 1, 2023

The LLF steering group is chaired by the the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, and the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen.

In response to the question from Sir Ben and Mr Gibson “what physical acts the Church refers to when teaching that sexual intimacy outside of marriage is forbidden”, Mr Selous — who represents the Church Commissioners in Parliament — responded: “The Living in Love and Faith process has always sought to recognise that the expression of sexual intimacy between two people cannot be reduced to a small set of defined actions.”

A further question asked whether a “letter threatening legal action” had been sent to the Bishops between the meetings of the College and the House, to which Mr Selous responded that “several items of correspondence were received over this period from a number of groups with different views, reflecting differing legal and theological opinions, as is widely in the public domain.

“Some offered a legal opinion on the routes of commendation or authorisation for the Prayers of Love and Faith, but I am not aware that any directly threatened the recipients with legal action.”

Read it all.

“The proceedings of these meetings of the House of Bishops and College of Bishops, including details of votes, are confidential," Mr Selous wrote. On Thursday, @ChurchTimes revealed that both had voted that clergy should be able to enter same-sex marriageshttps://t.co/aHHdbYyr9r

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 27, 2023

The first thing to note is that it is not only difficult, but impossible, to argue that what the bishops are proposing is not a departure from teaching contained in the bishops’ statements concerning Civil Partnerships and same-sex marriages in 2005, 2014 and 2019. In these statements the bishops said that public prayers should not be said for same-sex couples. What is now being proposed is that such prayers should be offered. If the Bishops previous teaching constitutes doctrine for the purposes of clause (g) of the February General Synod motion and for the purposes of the Canons, then what is proposed is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England.

The bishops argument seems to be that this change from previous teaching is not indicative of a change in any ‘essential matter’ because they are not proposing any change to the Church’s doctrine of marriage or its doctrine of sexual ethics which says that sexual intercourse should only take place within marriage (meaning a marriage with two people of the  opposite sex). Where their argument falls down is that if the Church of England’s doctrines of marriage and sexual ethics are viwed alongside the Church’s doctrine concerning the need for repentance and forgiveness for sin, then what they are proposing is necessarily a change of doctrine in an ‘essential matter.’

To understand why this is the case, the point that has to be grasped is that it is an absolutely essential part of Church of England doctrine that in order for people to be rightly related to God in this life and eternally happy with him in the next, they have to acknowledge, repent of, and confess their sins, not only in private but in the context of public worship, so that their sins may be forgiven and no longer constitute a barrier between them and God.

This doctrine is made crystal clear, for example, in the opening paragraphs of the service of Morning Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer:

Read it all.

Martin Davie–Why the Church of England Bishops Cannot Do what they are doing with Prayers for Same Sex couples https://t.co/ZiZJOWkIHC #anglican #theology #analysis #marriage #anthropology #ethics #holyscripture #BCP #anglican #religion #parishministry #UK 'The bishops argument… pic.twitter.com/FUM7TZSatW

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) October 27, 2023

Voting records seen by the Church Times show that a majority of 75 to 22 at the College of Bishops meeting in September supported a plan to approve the services under Canon B5A, which would have enabled their immediate use as an “experimental” service under the authority of the Archbishops.

At a meeting on 9 October, however, the House of Bishops opted to take a different route, and instead move straight to the full synodical process outlined in Canon B2. The College of Bishops had expressly voted against this, by a majority of 68 to 28.

The decision to reverse this in the House was by a small margin: 19 in favour of the plan to proceed straight to B2, and 16 against.

Although this will delay implementation, it means, none the less, that the votes are likely be taken by the present membership of the Synod. When the Synod voted to approve the Prayers of Love and Faith in February, the motion failed to gain a two-thirds majority in either of the Houses of Clergy and Laity

Read it all.

EXCLUSIVE: A large majority of C of E bishops support a move towards allowing priests to enter into same-sex marriage, and the immediate adoption of stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples, the Church Times can report. https://t.co/uo9UwWC0ZI

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 26, 2023

Key decisions, including whether priests are permitted to enter same-sex civil marriages, and how to provide for those who oppose the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples, can be made only after “further work” by the House of Bishops, it was announced on Friday.

At a press conference looking at the papers for the upcoming meeting of the General Synod (13-15 November), the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, insisted that neither item was being put off.

“It’s not deferring, but it’s recognising that in terms of moving both those forward, not just more work but — certainly in terms of the formal structural pastoral reassurance — more listening needs to be done,” she said.

The agenda for the upcoming November meeting of the General Synod is dominated by LLF, with a day-and-a-half of the two-and-a-half-day schedule allotted for discussion.

Read it all.

Same-sex provision needs more work, General Synod will be told https://t.co/Jlx6JII3Eu

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) October 20, 2023

III. RESETTING THE COMMUNION:

9. To press on in resetting theCommunion according to its biblical & historical roots:

a) The Anglican world has changed so dramatically in the last century. In 1900, about 80% of the Communion lived in England. Today, about 75%of Anglicans are estimated to live in Global South countries. The demographics have changed, and sadly in our day the theology of many bishops in the Church of England has also changed towards revisionism. We need new wineskins for a new reality.

b) On the 9th of October 2023, the Church of England House of Bishops signalled their intent to commend prayers of blessing for same sex couples. Despite all that is happening, we as orthodox leaders are very encouraged to see orthodox groupings within the Church of England beginning to collectively stand against this revisionism in their Church. We applaud the 12 bishops in the Church of England who have indicated that they are unable to support the decision by their House of Bishops, and we will uphold them in our prayers. We will stand with orthodox Anglicans in England both now and going forward.

c) We lament with tears all that has happened to the historic ‘mother church’ of the communion, and continue to pray for her restoration. At the same time, orthodox Anglican churches and entities will press on with the work God has given us to do as he renews the fallen creation through the finished work of Jesus Christ our Lord.

d) In relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other instruments of communion, we affirm the Ash Wednesday Statement and the Kigali Statement.

10. As orthodox Primates, we reaffirm our adherence to Lambeth Resolution 1.10 of 1998 in full, both in moral teaching and pastoral care. We recognise this resolution as the official teaching of the Anglican Communion on marriage and sexuality and urge that renewed steps be taken to encourage all provinces to abide by this doctrine in the faith, order, and practice.

Read it all.

Grateful for this statement from #GFSA & @gafconference Primates. It is, I think, realistic about the global position & helpful for England. Good see the involvement of @AnglicanCE and @AMiE_Anglican. The view taken of @JustinWelby is clear & consistent. https://t.co/XlO0zFA2n8

— Dan Leafe (@DanLeafe1) October 22, 2023

In their statement, they call on their colleagues to “reconsider the course we saw mapped out in our meeting”.

Disagreement among the bishops on the issue of same-sex relations is well known, but Monday’s statement — which began “The Church of England’s House of Bishops has agreed . . .” — gave the impression of its being a collective decision of the whole house, given the concession it contained to refer the Prayers to the General Synod.

But Thursday’s statement undermines this apparent collegiality. It continues: “We have participated in good faith in attempts to find consensus but were unable to support the decisions taken on Monday. There was deep disagreement within the House.

“Sharing the profound concerns of many in the Church of England and in the wider Communion, with heavy hearts we find it necessary to dissent publicly from the decisions of the House.”

Read it all.

Twelve bishops have publicly dissented from the decision, announced on Monday by the House of Bishops, to commend blessings for same-sex couples, saying that there is “deep disagreement within the House”

https://t.co/tUE8EZumv6

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 12, 2023

On Monday the House of Bishops reached a decisive point in the journey discerning how to proceed in relation to Living in Love and Faith. We have participated in good faith in attempts to find consensus but were unable to support the decisions taken on Monday. There was deep disagreement within the House. Sharing the profound concerns of many in the Church of England and in the wider Communion, with heavy hearts we find it necessary to dissent publicly from the decisions of the House.

We welcome the fact that the House recognised the need for General Synod to exercise its legitimate responsibilities in relation to liturgy and doctrine under Canon B2. However, the decision to commend the suite of prayers for use in public services bypasses those procedures and does not permit the General Synod to consider the full significance of the prayers. Nor can Synod determine whether the bishops have fulfilled their intention (supported in February) that the final form of the prayers should not be “indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England”. Indeed, legal and theological advice the House has received suggest clearly to us that the decisions of the House may fall short of this commitment.

We are also firmly of the view that we need to adhere to the commitment made to bring the Prayers of Love and Faith, the pastoral guidance and pastoral reassurance (including whatever formal structural provision is necessary) to Synod as a single package, rather than doing so in a piecemeal fashion.

Read it all.

Exclusive: Dissenting bishops speak out on same-sex blessings | Opinion | Premier Christianity https://t.co/JfvozFZBuO

— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) October 12, 2023

THE House of Bishops has agreed in principle to commend prayers of blessing for same-sex couples, but the authorisation of new stand-alone services for such blessings is to require a long and uncertain synodical process, it was revealed on Monday evening.

The House of Bishops met on Monday to decide the next steps in the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process, after which a press release was issued by Church House, Westminster.

It was not immediately clear exactly what the announcement meant in practice: the statement said that the House had “agreed in principle” that the Prayers of Love and Faith “should be commended for use”. It is understood that formal commendation will not occur until after the Synod has met in November.

The requirement of a full synodical process for the authorisation of special services in which the prayers are featured does not mean that the prayers themselves cannot be used between their commendation and the authorisation of the stand-alone services: Canon B5 allows for ministers to use their discretion to make alterations to existing services….

Read it all.

The House of Bishops has agreed in principle to commend prayers of blessing for same-sex couples, but authorisation of new stand-alone services for such blessings is to require a long and uncertain synodical process, it was revealed on Monday evening

https://t.co/c5pCxqBfcZ

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 12, 2023

Those who hold to the doctrine of the Church of England, which is to say, the doctrine revealed in Scripture, borne witness to in the historic formularies, and clarified in the canons, do not want the Prayers of Love and Faith.

But surely those who want to see things change should welcome them?

Well, no. Following the bishops’ announcement, a number of revisionists expressed their ongoing frustration. And we should not be surprised at this.

Because the bishops have resolutely refused to provide any theological basis for the Prayers of Love and Faith, as they stand, they are profoundly discriminatory. At February General Synod, I described them as ‘profoundly homophobic’, and I stand by that. For, without any justification given, these prayers imply that homosexual relationships can be celebrated and blessed – just not as much as heterosexual relationships. Gay couples can use the same prayers as at any marriage service – but they can’t be married. They can exchange rings – but not wedding rings.

And we have been told explicitly that the church’s doctrine has not changed. So these prayers can only be offered on the basis that the gay couple can’t be married, that if their relationship is sexual, it is sinful, and that their relationship itself can’t be blessed, though we can ask for God to bless them as individuals.

Who is going to want that?

Read it all.

Who wants the Prayers of Love and Faith anyway?https://t.co/9BqCWehARq

— Church Society (@ChurchSociety) October 10, 2023

Two things stand out at this point. First, Stanley and the pope seem to have missed something very basic: Christian pastoral strategy cannot be developed in isolation from Christian anthropology. Both the question of sexual identity and the politics that surround it are not primarily concerned with sexual behavior. They are actually about what it means to be a human being. For Christians, far more is therefore at stake in this debate than the question of which sexual acts are moral and which are immoral. Once sex becomes recreation and once it is detached from the body’s own sexual script, what it means to be human has fundamentally changed. Sexual complementarity, the telos of marriage, and the analogy between Christ and the church all lose their significance. In a society like ours, therefore, how we think about what it means to be human has undergone a significant change. The anthropology of modern Western society is fundamentally incompatible with a Christian doctrine of man. Failure to see this and then try to argue that codes of sexual morality are negotiable and can be subordinated to pastoral strategies of love and affirmation is to contradict central tenets of the Christian faith.

Second, the emergence within the orthodox church of voices prepared to identify Christian teaching and practice as the problem in this area may seem edgy and prophetic to those involved—“Didn’t the church get slavery wrong?”—but in reality it is as unprophetic as is possible. The church has always had—and needed—prophets because she is a fallible institution made up of fallible people. And yes she has made some terrible mistakes, not least with the matter of slavery. But what is interesting today is the inverted role of the modern prophet. While Isaiah and his colleagues saw their task as calling the people away from the anthropology of the wider world and back to that of the covenant God, today’s prophets seem to see their task as being religious mouthpieces for the priorities of the wider culture, calling the church away from a Christian anthropology and toward that of the world around. It is one thing to have The New York Times, The Atlantic, and MSNBC pointing to the church’s teaching as problematic because it will not recite the liturgy of the world. It is quite another thing to have Christians effectively proffer precisely the same criticism of brothers and sisters in Christ. Prophets warn the church when she is too close to the world. They do not go to the world to tell the pundits that the church is not worldly enough. The pope’s ambiguity and Stanley’s casuistry serve only to embolden the representatives of the pseudo-prophetic industry of Christian leaders who delight in telling the world that, yes, the church really is the problem.

Read it all.

The anthropology of modern Western society is fundamentally incompatible with a Christian doctrine of man.https://t.co/WypVT4N0Rr

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) October 5, 2023

The Church of England’s House of Bishops has agreed in principle that prayers asking for God’s blessing for same-sex couples – known as Prayers of Love and Faith – should be commended for use.

The House, which met in London, also concluded that structures for special services for same-sex couples, based on Prayers of Love and Faith, should go forward to be formally authorised under canon law.

The bishops will bring proposals to General Synod next month which will pave the way for a process that would lead to the authorisation of these special services under Canon B2.

This process, expected to take until 2025, would involve consultation with every diocese and require approval by General Synod.

Read it all.

Bishops agree to commend Prayers of Love and Faith.

Read the full news at https://t.co/dMKCYsTMnV.

— The Church of England (@churchofengland) October 9, 2023

The story came from language in the pope’s July 11 letter, published by the Vatican. In response to a question about whether it is possible for the Church to consider same-sex unions as “possible goods,” the pope wrote several paragraphs which emphasized that there are relationships — presumably same-sex relationships among them — which are “not morally acceptable.”

The pope added that “the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict” its doctrine regarding marriage, or “give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized.”

Still, Pope Francis also allowed for the possibility that some kind of blessing could be conferred on one or more Catholics in “not-marriage” unions.

“Pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. Because when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better.”

In short, the pope seemed to say, when people in an irregular union — perhaps a same-sex union — come to the parish for a blessing, it is worth discerning what they’re really asking for, and whether there is some way the Church can respond to that, even while avoiding the appearance of a nuptial blessing.

Read it all.

Pope Francis answers a dubia — Does inaction speak clearer than words? https://t.co/n1XazybIh0

— Mark Brumley (@mabrumley) October 3, 2023

Pope Francis’s Response to the Second Dubium

a. The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called “marriage.” Other forms of union realize it only in “a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

There is a clear understanding of what marriage is in the Bible and the Christian tradition.  Other forms of union may have some similarity to marriage, but they are not marriage.

b. It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.”

Church teaching is that male/female marriage is a ‘thing’: an actual institution that exists in the lives of men and women, and does not just a distant ideal that we may strive for, or a malleable concept that can be redescribed.

c. For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

In the UK context, this indicates that the Pope might accept civil partnerships as legal and social arrangements between people, but emphasises that they should not be celebrated in such a way as to make it seem as though they are marriage in the proper sense.

d. However, in our relationships with people, we must not lose the pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defence of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.

Charity (love) is of course always of prime importance in any discussion of human relationships.Part of charity is to speak the objective truth (i.e., that marriage is a ‘thing’ as per points a and b) but speaking objective truth cannot be the whole – the sum total – of a charitable response, which also must include an understanding and compassionate approach to people’s individual circumstances.

e. Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage.

Read it all.

Pope Francis’s new doctrine chief has said he believes the new structure of his department is working well, and includes a “democratic system” for handling queries or complaints which prohibits him from making unilateral decisions.https://t.co/TMQg6diL8r

— Crux (@Crux) October 3, 2023

On whether the practice of blessing same-sex unions is in keeping with Catholic revelation and the Church’s magisterium, Francis said “the Church has a very clear concept on marriage: An exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to begetting children.”

“Only this union is called ‘marriage.’ Other forms of union are only realized ‘in a partial and analogous way’, which is why they cannot strictly be called ‘marriage,’” the pope said.

Sacramental marriage “is much more than a mere ‘ideal,’” he said, adding this is why the Church “avoids every type of rite or sacrament that can contradict this conviction and imply that something is recognized as marriage which is not.”

However, Pope Francis stressed the need for compassion in the Church’s pastoral care of homosexual individuals, and signaled an openness to blessing same-sex unions on a case-by-case basis.

“In dealing with people we must not lose pastoral charity, which must pass through all of our decisions and attitudes,” he said, saying “the defense of the objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement.”

Read it all.

Pope offers cautious ‘yes’ on blessing some same-sex unions, ‘no’ on women priests @Pontifex #PopeFrancis #Dubiahttps://t.co/LEVB2NVNPT

— Elise Ann Allen (@eliseannallen) October 2, 2023

We have archbishops openly rejecting the teaching they vowed to uphold. The bishops are showing a lack of respect for a clear, recognizable link between liturgy and doctrine, refusing to follow the proper synodical processes for introducing new (particularly controversial) liturgy in the life of the church, sidelining public theological reasoning and the work of FAOC, and possibly seeking to introduce new guidance contrary to existing doctrine without the proper synodical process that respects the principle of bishops not acting on their own but always as bishops in synod. Alongside this they are also effectively tearing the Church of England away from the Anglican Communion and wider church catholic.

These are not minor technical matters. These actions threaten to dissolve part of the glue that holds the church together and enables bishops to act as a focus of unity. The bishops appear to be abandoning precious gifts that have helped preserve, structure, and cultivate our often fragile common life together across our differences. They are disregarding and undermining well-established, tried and tested, theologically and pastorally (not simply legally) founded principles and practices that enable “good disagreement.” It is, however, only by living within their constraints that bishops will nurture trust and embody integrity, especially as we navigate contentious proposed changes in our teaching and practice.

It is a serious matter for the church to err on marriage and sexuality. That, however, is a problem in one specific, albeit vitally important, area. These developments, and how episcopal and archepiscopal power is being used — on the sole basis, it seems, that these means are necessary to reach the desired end goal — are much more serious. They go beyond a single, possibly reversible, error of judgment, to weaken and potentially destroy core features of Anglican identity and essential characteristics of any healthy ecclesial body.

Read it all.

Grateful to the Covenant website at @Livng_Church for publishing my latest summary of the CofE processes around LLF and the serious and deeper questions they raise. https://t.co/6dmXAZWjAn

— Andrew Goddard (@goddardaj) October 4, 2023

The process towards a decision on how to introduce prayers of blessing for same-sex couples inched forwards this week when advocacy groups on both sides of the debate were briefed confidentially.

In a sign that the College and House of Bishops might be coming to a common mind about a way forward, both liberal and conservative campaigners were invited to confidential meetings this week with the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) team.

One pro-LGBT campaigner and General Synod member present, Professor Helen King, wrote in her blog afterwards that the conversations had mostly revolved around familiar concerns: “How best to move forwards, what are the implications of various canons that could be used, how are everyone’s consciences to be honoured, what — if any — compromises would be acceptable?”

But Professor King, who had also taken part in the Living With Difference facilitated conversations last month, suggested that the House of Bishops had yet to “make up its collective mind” and, instead, was still trying to take the temperature of the Church and establish what the response would be to various options.

Read it all.

The process towards a decision on how to introduce prayers of blessing for same-sex couples inched forwards this week when advocacy groups on both sides of the debate were briefed confidentially https://t.co/Q4Pz6NxQKI

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 3, 2023

Worshippers at one of the churches united with Holy Trinity, Brompton (HTB), have expressed “extreme disquiet” to the Vicar, the Revd Archie Coates, about his stance on blessings for same-sex couples.

At the start of July, Mr Coates was among 27 signatories to a letter, shown to the Church Times, which argued that it was “unlawful, unconstitutional, and illegitimate” for the Bishops to commend the Prayers of Love and Faith. The letter said that they should instead be subject to a process of formal synodical authorisation (News, 7 July).

The signatories included three other prominent figures in the HTB network of churches, including Mr Coates’s predecessor, the Revd Nicky Gumbel. A footnote stated that individuals were “signing in their personal capacities, recognising they cannot claim to speak for everyone that they lead”.

Notwithstanding this caveat, their contribution marked the first public statement on the prayers by members of HTB’s leadership. The Prayers of Love and Faith work was approved in outline by the General Synod in February (Synod, 17 February) and the business is due to return to the Synod in November (News, 22 June).

Read it all.

“As a group of worshippers within the parish we must strongly disassociate ourselves from this letter and we would like you to know that it is causing us extreme disquiet.” https://t.co/eeJK1QqF4J

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) July 30, 2023

The key questions raised by this majority view are as follows.

First, on what issues are they proposing that it should be possible for those in the Church of England to disagree? Does this, as the context suggests, include the matters that are currently under dispute in the Church of England, namely, the nature of marriage, the proper context for sexual activity, and what patterns of personal life should be expected of the clergy?

If it does include these matters, on what basis do the majority of the bishops hold that it is legitimate for Christians to disagree about them? To use the traditional theological terminology, on what grounds can these matters be said to be adiaphora?

Secondly, what would a ‘generous theological, ecclesial and pastoral space’ mean in practice?

Is this code for saying that the teaching of the Church of England should be altered to officially encompass the view that same-sex marriages and same-sex sexual relationships are in accordance with the will of God, that the Church should provide recognition and liturgical affirmation for same-sex relationships (including same-sex marriages) and that clergy should be allowed to be in same-sex relationships?

Read it all.

We may subjectively dislike what God has said, but true Christian humility lies in accepting what God has said and acting upon it anyway' Martin Davie https://t.co/EUCULJ0Bk1 #anglican #marriage #theology #sexualethics #anthropology #scripture #religion #uk pic.twitter.com/WyjgnobT0k

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) February 10, 2023

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

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

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

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

Read it all (registration or subscription).

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

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) July 7, 2023

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 23, 2023

Any decision at the end of the LLF process was going to face challenges but the responses to the bishops’ proposals suggest that there are four particular failures in their approach which have made matters worse. 

Firstly, in contrast to the detailed work of LLF, and failing to draw on that work, the bishops gave minimal explanation or theological justification for their proposals. Secondly, they proposed a liturgical response to different life situations without—as the ten points above demonstrate—offering any account of what pattern of same-sex relationship might be considered fitting within Christian discipleship. When asked about this the Bishop of London said in an answer (to Q163) in February, that we need to wait for the Pastoral Guidance as that “will include setting out unequivocally the necessary qualities for a relationship to be considered chaste, faithful and holy”. Thirdly, although committing to uphold the doctrine of marriage and thus rejecting a change to extend this to include same-sex marriage, the bishops were not clear as to what else—particularly in relation to sexual behaviour—should be considered as part of the doctrine of marriage. Nor were they clear whether they were proposing to change current teaching on sexual ethics. It was, for example, unclear whether what the Bishop of London had stated only in November last year in answer to a Synod question still applied: 

Canon B 30 does indeed continue to articulate the doctrine of the Church, including asserting that holy matrimony is the proper context for sexual intimacy. 

All three of these failings arose because it seems there was not sufficient time to achieve any consensus on them. The problem is that without any clarity and consensus in these areas, the proposals are inherently unstable and arguably incoherent. 

A further cause of instability and incoherence is a fourth feature of the proposals (number 7 above): to justify offering the prayers, including prayers of blessing, to couples in same-sex marriages the bishops, with the support of the Legal Office, offered a novel and contentious argument distinguishing holy matrimony from civil same-sex marriages. The relationship between civil marriage and holy matrimony after the introduction of same-sex marriage was not a question covered within LLF although it produced an invaluable “Brief History of Marriage Law” by Professor Julian Rivers. The answer now being offered represents a complete reversal of all previous legal and theological statements including in the Church of England’s successful case defending the refusal of Bishop Inwood, Acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, to give a licence to Jeremy Pemberton who was in a civil same-sex marriage. There, as set out in the original employment tribunal judgment of October 2015, the employment appeal tribunal judgment of December 2016 and the Court of Appeal Decision in March 2018, a key argument advanced was that the bishops’ actions were necessary because to be in a same-sex civil marriage was incompatible with the doctrine of the Church of England in relation to marriage.

Read it all.

The Prayers of Love and Faith put the practical cart before the theological horse. What questions do we first need to ask about the pattern of holy life God calls us to before we can discuss the Prayers with any coherence? @theologyethics1 @simonsarmiento https://t.co/i3nHup7SH1

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) June 2, 2023

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

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

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

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

Read it all (registration or subscription).

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

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) March 31, 2023

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 29, 2023

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

From here:

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

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

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

The meeting ended in prayer.