I want to make a threefold response to what Bell says in these two paragraphs.<\/p>\n
First, creating a new provincial structure for the Church of England\u00a0to provide for the differing positions of conservatives and liberals is not a \u2018fundamental threat\u2019 to the Church of England\u2019s ecclesiology.<\/p>\n
What CEEC is asking for is\u00a0internal differentiation within the Church of England by means of a re-configuration of the Church\u2019s 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.\u00a0[1]<\/a><\/p>\n 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 \u00a0of 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.\u00a0 A meeting of the General Synod is simply a joint meeting of these two provincial synods, and the two Convocations retain the power both\u00a0to 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).<\/p>\n Adding another province into the mix, or reconfiguring the two existing provinces, would not alter this ecclesiological structure in any fundamental way.[2]<\/a>\u00a0What it would mean is that the two (or three) \u00a0provinces 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\u2019s current teaching and practice with regard to marriage and human sexuality, thus allowing both conservatives and liberals to have what they are looking for \u00a0within their own province or provinces.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n Martin Davie\u2013A response to Meg Warner \u2018Does the Bible really say \u2026 that sex outside marriage is wrong? https:\/\/t.co\/tYzlpsnfpt<\/a> #christianity<\/a> #sexualethics<\/a> #marriage<\/a> #bible<\/a> #anglican<\/a> #anthropology<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/qdQI0oGk5j<\/a><\/p>\n — Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) May 30, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \n