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”.
The Church of England has halted its plans to introduce ‘wedding’ services for same-sex couples after the bishops finally accepted long-resisted legal advice that it is not possible to do so without the approval of two-thirds of General Synod. Plans to allow clergy to enter a same-sex civil marriage have also been scrapped owing to the legal complications, ongoing divisions on the issue and the confusion that bringing in the reform by itself would sow. The Times has more.
This is a victory of sorts for conservatives in the church, who will be relieved that further divisive changes will not be rammed through at this point. The forced departure of Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury last year over safeguarding failures – Welby being the main driving force behind trying to get this question ‘solved’ before he retired – was key in the momentum collapsing, combined with the retirement of a number of stalwart liberal bishops.
While relieved, though, conservatives will also be frustrated that the reasons for dropping the plans now – essentially the legal situation and the voting calculus in Synod – are no different from what they were eight years ago, before huge amounts of church money, time and emotional energy were expended in divisive ‘conversations’ at every level of church life. A number of bishops and others in senior leadership, led by Welby, had chosen to ignore this reality and attempt to find a way, any way, to push through the changes they wanted. The consequence is a church more divided than ever, with pain on both sides, local churches reeling from acrimonious splits and further demoralisation and disengagement in the pews.
Will the church now be able to move on from this lost decade of division? There are signs liberals were already resigned to this outcome, so it’s possible an uneasy truce will now settle, with liberals going back to quietly ignoring the rules in practice while refraining from making big noises about trying to change them.
CofE bishops won’t give their green light for ‘standalone’ blessing services for gay couples, or for gay priests to have civil same-sex marriages, @TheTimes understands
Will say both would need formal rewrite of church law
The Alliance network has been encouraging incumbents who are unhappy with the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process to make known their church’s willingness to withdraw from Church of England structures.
Behind the scenes, the Alliance — a network of church organisations opposed to the changes brought by the LLF process — has been encouraging incumbents to persuade their PCCs to pass a resolution stating that, if the Church of England moves forward with either stand-alone services or clergy same-sex marriage, the parish will take at least one of a set of actions. Those include: seeking “alternative episcopal oversight”, a decision to “reroute their diocesan financial contributions”, and moves to “encourage ordinands to participate in an orthodox vocations programme”.
On Wednesday afternoon, the House of Bishops announced that full synodical approval would be required for either standalone services or clergy same-sex marriage, effectively stalling LLF (News, 15 October). The Bishops also announced that, as a result, they did not consider it necessary to develop any model of alternative episcopal oversight.
Exclusive from @PhrancisMartin: the Alliance network has been encouraging incumbents who are unhappy with the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process to make known their church’s willingness to withdraw from Church of England structures. https://t.co/EGumMC3ZNkpic.twitter.com/pHAEN3Ovwn
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.’
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
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.
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
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.’
“…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]
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.
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
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.
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
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”.
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
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.
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? @talkChristianlyhttps://t.co/e1lpLJ3JVl
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.
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
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?
OrdinandsI 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.
Responding to the paper on Thursday afternoon, the national director of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), Canon John Dunnett, suggested that the proposals would not receive support from those who have consistently voted against LLF motions in Synod.
“The longing of CEEC Evangelicals is to remain in the C of E, but this is being undermined by the ongoing commitment of many in the House of Bishops to walk away from our biblical and inherited doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics,” he said.
Referring to provisions which, since late last year (News, 18 November 2023). CEEC has made available to churches which oppose the Prayers of Love and Faith, Canon Dunnett said:
“If General Synod approves the motion as it stands, I anticipate a significant increase in the take up of the Ephesian Fund and alternative spiritual oversight by clergy and churches in the CEEC and Alliance constituency. This is because many feel that this is the only way they can find a voice for their concern and a spiritual oversight that has integrity.”
Proposals for stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples are to be brought to the General Synod in July, alongside an offer for “delegated episcopal ministry” for those who oppose any changes https://t.co/8reQ8xiytv
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….
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@theologyethics1https://t.co/P6uq2M6mEF
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.
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
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.
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.
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…
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
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”.
“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.”
There’s a lot to take in. Noticing a huge silence on the part of various bishops on social media in reaction to the papal pronouncement, Catholic blogger Amy Welborn said it for all the laity out there:
Whassup?
Judging by their silence on Twitter/X feeds, I’m guessing the papal pronouncement came as a surprise to the bishops, too. Were I one of these men in red hats, I’d be furious. They’re made to look like fools. The laity are wondering: Is this a change in doctrine or not?
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops put out a statement saying that no, it actually was not, because same-sex unions were not considered marriage but that “anyone can ask for a blessing when they are seeking God’s assistance, mercy and grace.” What does this mean? Is this something like bringing up a pet for a blessing during an annual St. Francis Day service?
Most others saw it as a major shift in doctrine, including the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit and LGBTQ+ advocate who is editor-at-large for America magazine and someone whose ministry has been openly praised by Pope Francis.
Reaction to the note from LGBTQ Catholics and advocates touted the declaration as a major step forward. Commentary from some theologians, meanwhile, cautioned that it’s misleading to frame the declaration as a kind of monumental shift.https://t.co/CEtthGF4pa
The House of Bishops’ decision to commend the prayers of blessing for same-sex couples was made despite a last-minute plea from leaders in the HTB network. Inclusive groups are urging churches to use the prayers this Sunday.
A group calling itself “the Alliance”, which comprises the current and former vicars of Holy Trinity, Brompton (HTB), the Revd Archie Coates and the Revd Nicky Gumbel, along with 23 other figures in the C of E, wrote to the Bishops on Monday, the day before the meeting at which agreement was reached to commend the prayers…
The letter says: “It is not too late to delay the commending of the Prayers of Love and Faith until the complete package of the Prayers, the full Pastoral Guidance and the Pastoral Reassurance are all presented to Synod.”
The Bishops are also urged to provide “formal legal structural provision” for those who object to the introduction of the prayers. Such a settlement “will enable those who feel compelled to pursue changes to doctrine and practice to be able to minister freely without their actions causing growing schism in the Church of England”, the group writes.
The House of Bishops’ decision to commend the prayers of blessing for same-sex couples was made despite a last-minute plea from leaders in the HTB network. Inclusive groups are urging churches to use the prayers this Sunday. https://t.co/MMwrokW6cW
Blessings for same-sex couples can take place within existing church services from this Sunday, after the House of Bishops formally commended the Prayers of Love and Faith at a meeting on Tuesday.
A statement on Tuesday afternoon revealed that the Bishops had voted 24-11, with three recorded abstentions, in favour of commending the collection of prayers, which were first published in draft form in January….
Two marathon debates in the General Synod, in February and November, ended with votes approving the Bishops’ plan to commend the blessings, despite threats of legal action if they were to go ahead….
The blessings have only being sanctioned for use within regular services, and not as a stand-alone service. In the Synod in November, an amendment calling on the Bishops to consider a trial period for stand-alone services was carried, albeit narrowly….
Blessings for same-sex couples can take place within existing church services from this Sunday, after the House of Bishops formally commended the Prayers of Love and Faith at a meeting on Tuesday. https://t.co/4MuuNMnPpc
The problem is that, as with the former Prime Minister’s claim, nobody really believes this is the case. How many people really believe that:
what will be commended in the PLF Suite of Resource—public prayers for God’s blessing on two people of the same sex many of whom will be in a sexual relationship and/or a civil same-sex marriage—has always been lawful in the Church of England and could have been commended by the bishops and used by clergy at any point in the past?
the use of such prayers does not represent a major change from the historic and current situation?
while the doctrine of marriage remains unchanged, the proposed use of the PLF is neither contrary to doctrine nor indicative of a departure from in doctrine in any essential matter?
all these claims have been shown by the House of Bishops to be theologically and legally coherent and convincing?
Charlie Bell, a supporter of getting PLF done but also a severe critic of the latest proposals, recently wrote “what the bishops have done may be legal, but it is not honest”. This echoes the language of Canon C1 and the oath of canonical obedience. The way in which the bishops are proceeding—the “nothing has changed” argument and the refusal to publish the written legal advice they have received—is very difficult to view as honest and to trust. Given the law has not formally been changed, for many the introduction of PLF means that the doctrine to which the law refers has changed in practice. If, as it is being claimed, doctrine has not changed, then what is being proposed seems to many to be not only “not honest” but also, as shown by past legal advice, probably “not legal”.
In short, unless we sincerely believe and are convinced that “nothing has changed”, then we have to say that it appears the bishops are acting in their commendation, and thereby encouraging clergy to act in their services, in ways which are unlawful. In addition, those liturgical actions are now—because of the bishops’ decisions, which do not alter the legality of what they commend and so in one sense could be described as simply symbolic or “virtue signalling”—going to attract much more attention when they take place then they have done in the past. This means clergy who accept at face value and act on the basis of the bishops’ commendation are probably more likely to face legal challenge than they were in the past.
In the light of this, it even more unacceptable that the bishops are now so reticent to set out clearly for parish clergy, and those who advise them such as archdeacons, both
the changing written legal advice which they have received throughout this process, particularly for their 9th October meeting, and
a clear explanation as to how what they are now proposing in PLF is, and indeed always has been, legal and how this judgment relates to the content of past legal advice which they have published that would suggest otherwise.
It has repeatedly been stated that the CofE's doctrine of marriage has not changed. Can the bishops commend the Prayers of Love and Faith with any credibility without sharing the legal and theological basis on which they are doing so? @theologyethics1https://t.co/3c7RlIvjb9
The amended motion that was eventually passed on Wednesday after a long and often painful debate as different conscientiously held views were explained and exchanged noted the progress made since the February Synod which asked the House of Bishops to find ways of commending the Prayers of Love and Faith alongside a number of other commitments, not least a heartfelt declaration of repentance for the prejudice and exclusion many LGBTQIA+ people had experienced and sadly sometimes continue to experience in the church. Nothing has yet changed or been introduced, but ways forward and a path to follow is being mapped out. That’s really what this Synod was about.
In particular, what will happen next is that the prayers themselves will be commended for use, either privately and pastorally with same-sex couples, or as part of an existing or regular service in church, but standalone services, i.e. that bit of LLF which has received the most publicity, and probably where the greatest disagreement lies, will be subject to a process of authorisation under Canon B2, which would mean that in order to receive final authorisation, there would need to be a two thirds majority in favour in each of the three synodical houses – bishops, clergy, laity.
Leading up to that vote, there will probably be a period of experimentation under Canon B5A. This is the canon allows individual parishes that want to, that opt in, to apply to be able to use material on an experimental basis for a fixed period, at the end of which, Synod considers whether to extend the authorization under B2. That’s’ the vote requiring the two thirds majorities. Doing it this way will be useful way both gauging the feeling of the Church, but also give time to properly consider exactly what sort of pastoral reassurance and provision will be necessary to honour those who in good conscience won’t be able to support these developments. Again, I want you to know that I am very committed to ensuring this happens well in the Diocese of York, but also for the whole Church of England, as are my colleagues.
The pastoral guidance concerning what this means for ordinands and clergy, particularly over whether they could be permitted to enter into same-sex marriages themselves is still a work in progress and wasn’t really discussed at this synod. But it will be forthcoming in the early part of 2024.
For many in the Church of England a line was crossed this week that we prayed and hoped would not happen.
On Wednesday afternoon, the General Synod expressed its support by a tiny majority of just a few votes for the continued implementation of the House of Bishops proposals to change the position and practice of the Church of England with regards to sexual ethics and marriage.
In practice we now expect the bishops to commend prayers of blessing for same sex couples by mid-December (and provide dedicated services soon after), to prepare guidance which will make it possible for clergy to marry their same sex partners, and that future ordinands will not to be asked to indicate whether their lifestyle and personal relationships are in keeping with the doctrine of the Church of England.
We believe these proposals are being pursued without adequate provision and protection for those holding to the biblical, historic and global majority Anglican view on marriage and sexual intimacy. This underlines the failure of leadership by the archbishops and divided House and College of Bishops….
We are saddened to know that the General Synod of the Church of England has passed a resolution to bless same sex unions despite almost 50% of the Synod opposing the bishops’ proposal. This disastrous decision creates the same serious consequences of differentiation and division as in other provinces and further fractures our beloved Anglican Communion.
On behalf of the Primates of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), I once again affirm the GSFA Ash Wednesday Statementwhich we made on Feb 20th this year (2023). We wholeheartedly support the faithful bishops, clergy and laity within the Church of England and assure them of our continuing prayers and pastoral commitment as a global body.
“……. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.” Revelation 2:10
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
Stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples are to go ahead in trial form, after an amendment was made — by a narrow vote — to the main motion being debated by the General Synod.
The final motion was carried on Wednesday afternoon in all three Houses: Bishops 23-10, Clergy 100-93, and Laity 104-100.
The motion stated that the Synod “recognise the progress made by the House of Bishops towards implementing the motion on Living in Love and Faith (LLF) in February 2023 . . . and encourage the House to continue its work of implementation”.
The margins in the final vote were tighter than they had been in February’s vote on the original proposals…, in the House of Bishops as in the others: nine months ago, only four bishops voted against.
Stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples are to go ahead in trial form, after an amendment was made — by a narrow vote — to the main motion being debated by the General Synod.https://t.co/q3vLOH8NmF
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
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.”
“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
