Why GS 2328 is not the right way forward.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to ask two questions about paper GS 2328 ‘Living in Love and Faith setting out the progress made and work still to do’ [1]which has been produced by the House of Bishops as the basis for the debate on Living in Love and Faith which will take place at General Synod next month. The two questions are (a) Is what is proposed in line with the motion relating to the Living in Love  and Faith process passed by General Synod in February? and (b) Is what is proposed compatible with the Canonical requirements regarding ‘forms of service’ used in the Church of England? What I shall argue in this paper is that the answer to both questions is ‘No.’

What the Bishops are proposing In GS 2328 is that the forms of service[2] which it contains should be divided into two. The Prayers for Covenanted Friendship in Annex B and the Prayers of Love and Faith in Annex C should be commended by the bishops for use by ministers under the liturgical discretion granted to them in Canon B5. The ‘Service Structures and Sample Services’ contained in Annex D should be approved by General Synod under the terms of Canon B2.

Since Covenanted Friendships are by definition neither marriages, nor sexually active relationships, they are not theologically controversial. People have questioned whether prayers for such relationships are actually needed, but no one has suggested that would be contrary to Church of England doctrine.

However, because the forms of service included in Annexes C and D are intended for use by couples who are in civil same-sex marriages and/or who are in sexually active same-sex relationships these forms of service are very theologically controversial and the controversy is about whether they are in agreement with Church of England doctrine.

What is contained in the motion passed by General Synod and in Canons B5 and B2

The question of whether or not they are matters because of what has been agreed by General Synod in relation to the Living in Love and Faith process and what is in Canons B5 and B2, the two Canons under which the bishops propose the forms of service in Annexes C and D should be authorised for use.

The motion passed by General Synod last February runs as follows:

‘That this Synod, recognising the commitment to learning and deep listening to God and to each other of the Living in Love and Faith process, and desiring with God’s help to journey together while acknowledging the different deeply held convictions within the Church: 

(a) lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to LGBTQI+ people and the harm that LGBTQI+ people have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church; 

(b) recommit to our shared witness to God’s love for and acceptance of every person by continuing to embed the Pastoral Principles in our life together locally and nationally; 

(c) commend the continued learning together enabled by the Living in Love and Faith process and resources in relation to identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage;  

(d) welcome the decision of the House of Bishops to replace Issues in Human Sexuality with new pastoral guidance; 

(e) welcome the response from the College of Bishops and look forward to the House of Bishops further refining, commending and issuing the Prayers of Love and Faith described in GS 2289 and its Annexes; 

(f) invite the House of Bishops to monitor the Church’s use of and response to the Prayers of Love and Faith, once they have been commended and published, and to report back to Synod in five years’ time;

(g) endorse the decision of the College and House of Bishops not to propose any change to the doctrine of marriage, and their intention that the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England.’[3]

For our purposes the key clause is clause (g) which indicates the support of General Synod for the bishops’ decision that there should not be any change in the Church of England’s existing doctrine of marriage and that the final version of Prayers of Love and Faith ‘should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England.’

If we turn to the Canons what we find is that Canon B 5.3 lays down that:

 ‘All variations in forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.’   

Canon B 2.1 likewise states that:

‘… any form of service or amendment thereof approved by the General Synod under this Canon shall be such as in the opinion of General Synod is neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.’

The difference between the wording used in the Canons and that in the motion passed by General Synod is that the Canons contain the qualifying words ‘in any essential matter’ and the Synod motion does not. The argument put forward by the House of Bishops in GS 2328 depends on this variation in wording.

What the bishops say about whether what they are proposing is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England or indicates a departure from it.

In paragraph 13 of Annex A the bishops state that:

‘The Church’s doctrine remains as set out in Canon B 30 (Of Holy Matrimony); we have been clear that we have no intention of changing that doctrine. We also note that the Church’s teaching on sexual relations has been treated as being part of the Church’s doctrine of marriage. We are not proposing to change that teaching.’

They do not specify what ‘the Church’s teaching on sexual relations involved’ but in context it means the teaching that God has ordained that the sole legitimate context for sexual intercourse is within marriage as defined in Canon B.30, that is marriage between two people of the opposite sex.  

In paragraph 15 of the Annex the bishops then argue that because the proposed prayers  for same-sex couples (which they refer to as PLF, short for ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’) do not involve a change in the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage, and because they do not assume that the relationship being prayed for is a sexual one, it follows that these prayers ‘would not be contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England.’

However, in paragraphs 16-17 they then go on to concede that the legal and theological advice that they have been given is that:

‘….whether liturgical provision is ‘indicative of a departure’ from doctrine poses a different question from whether it ‘is contrary to’ that doctrine. It includes consideration of what a liturgical provision indicates about the Church’s understanding of its doctrine and what that doctrine requires.

We have also been advised that it would be difficult to say that making the PLF [available for same-sex couples without there being an assumption as to their sexual relationships was not indicative of any departure from the Church’s doctrine. Existing pastoral statements of the House of Bishops (issued in 2005, 2014 and 2019) state that because some same-sex couples will be ‘living consistently with the teaching of the Church, others not’, it would ‘not be right to produce an authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of [civil partnerships/same-sex marriages] and ‘that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who [register a civil partnership/enter a same sex marriage]’. If the PLF are to be available for same-sex couples without there being an assumption as to their sexual relationships, there would have been a change in the Church’s formal position on what its doctrine of marriage, and the place of sex within it, did and did not preclude in terms of public worship. Such a change might indicate a departure from the previous understanding that the Church’s teaching precluded public worship being offered for a same sex couple who were or might be in a sexually active relationship.’

Having made this concession, the bishops then change tack by asking whether the prayers indicate a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England ‘in any essential matter.’

In paragraph 19 the bishops note the words of the Revision Committee for the 1974 Worship and Doctrine Measure that:

 ‘The words ‘in any essential matter’ ensured that there was a proper degree of flexibility so that new insights into doctrine compatible with the general Anglican approach could be reflected in forms of worship and decisions of the Synod.’

 The bishops then argue in paragraphs 21-26 that the prayers they are proposing conform to this understanding of what is permissible. The paragraphs run as follows:  

‘21. In considering whether what we are proposing would be a departure from doctrine ‘in any essential matter’ we have therefore asked ourselves the following questions:

1. Would making the PLF available in those circumstances represent a proper degree of flexibility (a ‘small change … in a matter regarded as doctrinal’) so that new insights into doctrine can be reflected in forms of worship? I
2. Are those new insights compatible with the general Anglican approach?
3. Are the essential doctrines of the Church of England safeguarded?

22. In considering those questions, we have had careful regard to the theological rationale for the making of pastoral provision which includes the following:

 • that it is not intended to change the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage;

• that the Church’s teaching on sexual activity is regarded as part of that doctrine;

• that the PLF are intended to recognise and respect that doctrine;

• that the PLF affirm the goods in same-sex relationships, including stability, faithfulness, exclusive, lifelong commitment etc.;

• that the PLF say nothing about sex but many same-sex couples will be in active sexual relationships.

23. We consider that what is envisaged by way of pastoral provision – which involves acknowledging and celebrating what is good in same-sex relationships even if the Church is unable to commend every aspect of some relationships – is a new insight into doctrine that can be reflected in forms of worship and that doing so represents a proper degree of flexibility.

24. We consider that the new insight is compatible with the general Anglican approach. The theological rationale set out in Annex H for making this pastoral provision explains why that is the case, and in particular how this pastoral provision would stand in a long line of the pastoral practice of finding ways to help people move forward in holiness in a world that falls far short of any ideals, without giving up on the idea of the ideal altogether.

 25. We consider that the essential doctrines of the Church of England are safeguarded. The PLF do not seek to simulate marriage, or pretend that the Church has made a decision to extend marriage to same-sex couples. But they do discern and affirm what is good, and pray for God’s presence and blessing over the people within the relationship.

26. We have therefore come to the view that, in so far as making the PLF available for couples in an active sexual relationship does involve any departure from doctrine, it nevertheless does not involve a departure from doctrine ‘in any essential matter’, and that doing so is compatible with the relevant canonical requirements.’

The argument put forward in Annex H

IAs we have just seen, paragraph 24 explains that Annex H of GS 2328 offers a rationale for the idea that underlies the prayers in Annex C, namely that it is right to ‘find ways to help people move forward in holiness in a world that falls far short of any ideals, without giving up on the idea of the ideal altogether.’

If we turn to Annex H we find that it argues that the kind of ‘pastoral provision’ proposed in Annex C

‘… recognises that we all fall short of the ideal, of perfect holiness, but that there are things we can do together, in our prayer, in our worship, in our life together to nurture the kind of virtues and goods that reflect more closely the ways of God. This is what the PLF are seeking to do: not to displace or deny the ‘ideal’, the doctrine of marriage, or the teaching of marriage as the proper place for sexual intimacy between one man and woman. Rather they seek to acknowledge that on our earthly journey, we can develop good practices, virtues, qualities, that can be recognised and ask for God’s help and blessing as we seek to grow in love and righteousness and receive the blessings of the kingdom.. The PLF are a sign of hope, and a recognition of where God is at work among us, even if we do not fully understand how that is, or why we are the way we are, and even when we might be concerned about other aspects of a relationship. They are an example of the discipline of discerning God’s good gifts, thanking God for them, and seeking to grow them further. They build on what is good and trust that God can enable good to grow further.’ (p.5)

Developing the idea of discernment point the Annex goes on to argue that:

‘Just as the Church’s recent work on the family, Love Matters, has discerned the rich and moving ways in which different households can hold the goods of family, the Prayers of Love and Faith are part of an ongoing work of discernment. The Church is called to be a community seeking to discern God’s faithful and holy love in action. God’s action in history never fails to surprise – by taking root in unexpected places and among unexpected people. While there remain significant disagreements about the extent to which committed, exclusive and faithful LGBT+ relationships carry within them the goods of holy and faithful relationships, the Prayer of Love and Faith are offered in recognition of the hope, promise and joy those relationships can show forth.’ (p.13)

In similar vein it then further argues that:

‘The PLF witness to the enduring message of the doctrine of marriage, by affirming very clear goods that bear a family resemblance to the goods of marriage: stability, faithfulness, exclusive, lifelong commitment, fruitfulness, mutual nurture and work for the flourishing of each partner and all those with whom a couple comes into contact. But the PLF fall short of affirming a couple’s entire way of life as ‘made holy by God’ and ‘blessed’ as a marriage service would do. This position reflects our uncertainty about how to conclude our discernment. The PLF do not seek to simulate marriage, or pretend that our Church has made a decision to extend marriage to same-sex couples. But they do discern and affirm what is good, and pray for God’s presence and blessing over the people within the relationship. They are ‘prayers on the way’: the way of people seeking to grow in God, but also the way of a Church seeking to discern how to respond well to the diversity of the Body, and to the complexity of a rapidly changing social context.’  (pp.17-18)

Annex H also addresses the issue of blessing, building on the material on blessing contained in the Living in Love and Faith resource library. [4]

It declares that a prayer of blessing

‘…. is a prayer for God to act in accordance with God’s posture towards the world – one that consistently seeks to draw people closer to himself and enable them to flourish.’ (p.22)

Prayers of blessing:

‘…. create space for the reality of God’s presence to be named in human lives. Such a spiritual imagination allows for the expression of human faithfulness and commitment in response to God’s faithfulness to us. It extends the invitation for hearts to be turned outwards towards the other, reflecting the goods of a household. Those goods include not only permanence and faithfulness as the hopes of life together but also encompass hospitality, generosity, stability, compassion, mutual support, flourishing and security. All these goods are held within a wider vision of living out of the sacrificial love of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Through the power of the Spirit, Christian disciples are called to walk in that way. ‘ (p.22)

In making provision for prayers of blessing the Annex C thus reflects:

‘…. the expectation that the Spirit is at work in human lives, bringing forth such fruit. They express the intention that the relationships of those blessed and prayed for are not only good for those individuals – by way of comfort and strength – but also that wider society benefits through a commitment to mercy, justice, compassion and hospitality.’ (p.22)

In summary, Annex H states that the PLF are:

‘…. prayers that enable us to be present in solidarity with a couple; to honour before God the self-giving love and faithfulness they have for one another; to name the virtues they are exhibiting and pray that these may be deepened; to pray for their needs and the whole of their earthly pilgrimage, and pray that God would bring them into flourishing.’ (p.22)

The overall argument put forward by the bishops in GS 2328

If we combine what is said in Annex A and Annex H the argument that emerges is clear.

1. The forms of service set out in Annexes C and D are not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England in that they do not say that same-sex couples are married or that God approves of sexual intimacy outside heterosexual marriage.
2. It would be difficult to say that these forms of service are not indicative of a departure from the Church’s previous teaching that prayers should not be offered for same-sex couples whose relationships are, or might be, of a sexual nature.
3. Although the forms of service are a development of Anglican practice, they are not indicative of a departure from the Church’s doctrine in any ‘essential matter’ since all they are doing is recognising the ‘goods’ or virtues  that can be found in same-sex relationships and asking for God’s blessing that these goods may increase.

It is important to note that the idea of recognising the goods contained in same-sex relationships is what is distinctive about the concept of ‘pastoral provision’ which is central to GS 2328. Annex H notes that the language of ‘pastoral accommodation’ which has previously been used ‘is laden with implicit power dynamics; it has a chequered history, and can be used to reinforce the sense that some people’s lives are somehow ‘second-class’. It is still cast within the theological space of ‘remedy for sin’. (p.15). Pastoral provision, on the other hand, ‘seeks to focus firmly on what is good, and encourage growth through the identification of God at work.’ (p.15). It is this positive focus which is found in the material proposed by the bishops, both in the prayers in Annex C and the orders of service in Annex D.

What the bishops appear to be trying to do is to move past the deep disagreement in the Church of England about same-sex marriage and same-sex sexual activity by suggesting that, even if we disagree about such matters, we can (and should)  still recognise the goods that exist in same-sex relationships and pray that these goods may increase.

What are we to make of the argument put forward by the bishops?

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:

‘At the beginning of Morning Prayer the Minister shall read with a loud voice some one or more of these Sentences of the Scriptures that follow. And then he shall say that which is written after the said Sentences.

WHEN the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Ezekiel 18.27

I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Psalm 51.3

Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Psalm 51.9

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit : a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psalm 51.17

Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Joel 2.13

To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him: neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws which he set before us.  Daniel 9.9-10

O Lord, correct me, but with judgement; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jeremiah 10.24; Psalm 6.1

Repent ye; for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.  St. Matthew 3.2

I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. St. Luke 15.18-19

Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Psalm 143.2

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us: but if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 St. John 1.8-9

DEARLY beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us in sundry places to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloke them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy. And although we ought at all times humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we most chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart and humble voice unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying after me:

A general Confession to be said of the whole Congregation after the Minister, all kneeling.

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father, We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, We have offended against thy holy laws, We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, And we have done those things which we ought not to have done, And there is no health in us: But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us miserable offenders; Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults, Restore thou them that are penitent, According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord: And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

The Absolution or Remission of sins to be pronounced by the Priest alone, standing: the people still kneeling.

ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The people shall answer here, and at the end of all other prayers,

Amen.’

It is also the case that according to the doctrine of the Church of England not only does marriage have to be between two people of the opposite sex, and sex to be confined to marriage thus defined, but that actions by human beings that are contrary to these two points are sin.

We can see this in the case of marriage in the words spoken by the priest to the couple seeking to be married at the beginning of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer:

‘I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, 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.’

What is lawful here is what is lawful according to God’s law made known in God’s Word in Scripture, and what the priest is warning the couple is that if their relationship is not lawful by this standard then this is a sin for which they will have to answer to God ‘at the dreadful day of judgement.’

In the case of sex outside marriage, the marriage service also states that the second reason marriage was ordained was : ‘… for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.’  What is made clear here is that fornication is a sin which spiritually defiles people.

In similar fashion the Litany in the Prayer Book includes the prayer ‘From fornication, and all other deadly sin; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil, Good Lord, deliver us.’ Here fornication is unequivocally described as a ‘deadly sin,’ a form of activity that will lead to spiritual death.

If we ask what fornication means, the answer is that like the New Testament term porneia it means all forms of sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage. That this is the case is shown in the Homily ‘Against whoredom and uncleanness’ in the First Book of Homilies in which adultery, whoredom and fornication are used synonymously to refer to extra marital sexual activity:

‘And that ye may perceive, that fornication and whoredom , are in the sight of God most abominable sins, ye shall call to remembrance, this commandment of God, Thou shalt not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14). By the which word adultery, although it be properly understood of the unlawful commixtion (or joining together) of  a married man with any woman beside his wife, or of a wife, with any man beside her husband: yet thereby is signified also all unlawful use of those parts which be ordained for generation. And this one commandment forbidding adultery, doth sufficiently paint and set out before our eyes the greatness of this sin of whoredom and manifestly declareth how greatly, it ought to be abhorred of all honest and faithful persons. And, that none of us shall think himself excepted from his commandment, whether we be old or young, married or unmarried, man or woman, hear what God the Father saith by his most excellent Prophet Moses: There shall be no whore among the daughters of Israel, nor no whoremonger among the sons of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:17). Here is whoredom, fornication and all uncleanness, forbidden to all kinds of people all degrees, and all ages without exception.’ [5]

Seen from this perspective all forms of same-sex sexual activity are forms of fornication because, as Paul makes clear in Romans 1:26-27,  they involve ‘unlawful use of those parts which be ordained for generation.’

If it is indeed the case, as these Anglican doctrinal sources make clear, that both unlawful forms of marriage and same-sex sexual activity are very serious forms of sin, it follows that according to the Church of England doctrine noted above they have to be met with a call to repentance, which in turn needs to be followed by confession and absolution. This point was properly recognised in the motion passed by General Synod in 1987 (the ‘Higton motion’) which has never been abolished or superseded, and which remains an authoritative statement of the position of the Church of England.  This motion declares that like fornication and adultery, ‘homosexual genital acts’ are to be met ‘with a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion’ (the two seen as belonging together). [6]

 What the bishops are proposing in GS 2328 makes absolutely no reference to repentance (with the sole exception of the general confession at the start of the proposed service of Holy Communion in Annex D).  There is no call to those who are in same-sex marriages or same-sex sexual relationship to repent of these forms of sin, no opportunity for confession of them, and no opportunity for absolution.

The question that this raises is whether the bishops believe:

• That same sex marriages and same-sex sexual activity are not sinful,

or

• That they are sinful, but that a call to repentance, confession and absolution are not required.

The absence of any call for repentance, any opportunity for confession, or any opportunity for absolution point to either (a) or (b) being true and are thus indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England on essential matters. For this reason, the material in Annexes C and D is at variance both with what is required both by the February Synod motion and by the Canons.     

The theological point that the bishops have chosen to ignore is that while those in same-sex marriages and same-sex sexual relationships may indeed exercise virtue in these relationships, they have chosen to exercise virtue in the context of forms of relationship which according to Church of England doctrine (and also the traditional doctrine of the Church Catholic and the teaching of Holy Scripture) are not virtuous but sinful.

To ignore this fact may appear to be compassionate since lesbian and gay people will feel very deeply hurt to hear their most important relationships described as sinful and to be told they need to repent of them (with the necessary corollary that they need to cease to be part of them). However, not telling people these hard truths will mean that they will have no opportunity to repent, receive forgiveness and amend their lives. Not giving people such an opportunity is simply wrong. This is because it shows a lack of concern for the well-being of the people concerned that is contrary to the will of God who declares through the prophet Ezekiel ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live’ (Ezekiel 33:11).  

To put it another way, what GS 2328 calls ‘pastoral provision’ is actually nothing of the sort because it is not pastoral. Proper pastoral care means giving the sheep what they need to flourish and in the case of those in same-sex marriages and same-sex relationships this involves among other things challenging people to turn from their sins and live so that at their life’s end they ‘may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord.’

What is the right way forward?

If the points that I have just made are correct, then what is proposed in GS 2328 cannot be the right way forward. It goes against what Synod agreed in February and goes against Canon law. In addition (and more importantly) the pastoral approach it involves is completely wrong. It proposes that the Church of England should bless what God does not bless, i.e. behaviour contrary to his will. and, as I have argued In my book With God’s Approval? this is something that is never right to do. It also proposes that gay and lesbian people should be left trapped in a sinful way of life rather than being given the opportunity to receive the forgiveness and new start that God longs to give them.  

GS 2328 needs to be withdrawn or voted down so that a proper form of pastoral care for those in same-sex marriages or same-sex relationships can be developed instead. A sensible way forward would be for the bishops to work with Living Out and True Freedom Trust to find a way in which their important work in developing an orthodox Christian approach to the pastoral care of those with same-sex attraction could be rolled out across the Church of England as a whole.

If opposition by liberal groups in the Church of England would make such an approach politically impossible to implement, then the CEEC’s proposal for structural differentiation in the Church of England needs to be implemented instead since this would mean that there was at least one province in the Church of England where proper pastoral care for same-sex attracted people would be offered.

---

[1] G S 2328 ‘Living in Love and Faith setting out the progress made and work still to do’ at: gs-2328-llf-nov-2o23.pdf.

[2] According to Canon B1.3 ‘forms of service’ is a wide ranging terms which encompasses:

‘(i)      the prayers known as Collects;

(ii)     the lessons designated in any Table of Lessons;

(iii)    any other matter to be used as part of a service;

(iv)    any Table of rules for regulating a service;

(v)     any Table of Holy Days which expression includes ‘A Table of all the Feasts’ in The Book of Common Prayer and such other Days as shall be included in any Table approved by the General Synod.’

[3] ‘Prayers for God’s blessing for same-sex couples take step forward after Synod debate’ at: https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/prayers-gods-blessing-same-sex-couples-take-step-forward-after-syno

[4] For a critical analysis of this material see Martin Davie, With God’s Approval? (Oxford: Dictum 2023).

[5] ‘Against whoredom and uncleanness’  in The Homilies (Bishopstone: Brynmill/Preservation Press, 2006),pp.88=89.   

[6] General Synod Report of Proceedings, Vol.18, No.3 (London: CHP, 1987),pp.955-6.  

What the House of Bishops has proposed and why it is problematic.

What the bishops have proposed

Following the meeting of the House of Bishops yesterday the Church of England issued a press release setting out how the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) proposals will be taken forward. [1]

From the press release it is clear that the House of Bishops has decided to do four things:

• It will commend the prayers and readings for use with same-sex couples contained in PLF so that they can be used in Church of England services.  The press release is silent about the precise mechanism for doing this but it will presumably be done by the bishops commending the prayers for use by clergy ‘in the exercise of their discretion under Canon B5 of the Canons of the Church of England’ as was proposed by the bishops in GS 2289 in February.

• It will propose to General Synod in November a process by which the stand alone services for the blessing of same-sex couples contained in PLF  can be authorised by General Synod under the terms of Canon B2 following consultation with the dioceses. They suggest that this process would be completed by 2025 (i.e. within the lifetime of the present General Synod).

• It will bring to General Synod in November draft pastoral guidance about how the readings and prayers authorised under Canon B5 should be used and will subsequently bring forth proposals relating to ‘the life and work of clergy and lay ministers.’

• It will ‘explore further forms of pastoral reassurance and formal structural pastoral provision to ensure the conscience of everyone is respected.’

Six things to note about the bishops’ proposals

The first thing to note about what the bishops have decided is that they are not going to back down on the PLF proposals. The proposals are deeply divisive within the Church of England and among the bishops themselves, but the House of Bishops collectively have nonetheless decided to persist with them. Furthermore, the House has clarified that the PLF proposals involve prayers ‘asking for God’s blessing for same-sex couples.’ There was some ambiguity when the PLF prayers first came out about whether they were intended to be prayers of blessing and, if so, whether it was individuals or couples who were being blessed. All such ambiguity has now been removed. According to the bishops, the prayers are prayers of blessing, and they are prayers for couples and not just for individuals.

The second thing to note is that the bishops have decided to authorise the PLF material using two different routes. As I have said, the readings and prayers for use in existing services will probably be commended for use under Canon B5 and a process is proposed to eventually authorise the stand-alone services under Canon B2. The reason for this distinction is not explained in the press release and is unclear. Both sets of material will offer prayers of blessing for same-sex couples and both equally involve a change in the Church of England’s existing discipline, which prohibits the offering of such prayers, so why can the first set of material simply be commended for use while the second set requires diocesan consultation and a 2/3 majority in all three Houses of General Synod?  Given the equally divisive nature of both sets of material, surely they both require the sort of detailed scrutiny and high level of support across the Church as whole that authorisation under Canon B2 involves?

The only plausible explanation for the distinction that the bishops are making is a political one. The bishops are not sure that there is a 2/3 majority in General Synod for the blessing of same-sex couples and so they are making sure that at least some form of blessing is going to be permitted. The commendation of the first set of material is intended to try to create a momentum for the authorisation of the second set (if we can already pray for God’s blessing on same-sex couples what’s the problem with doing this in a stand-alone service) and even if the second set is not authorised the first set will still be available for use.

The third thing to note is that the bishops say nothing about offering a rationale for the permissibility of either sets of prayers. When in February the General Synod gave its approval to the bishops continuing with the PLF process it stated explicitly in clause (g) of the relevant motion that it endorsed:

‘… the decision of the College and House of Bishops not to propose any change to the doctrine of marriage, and their intention that the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England.’

As the Church of England Evangelical Council’s paper on ‘The Church of England’s Doctrine of Marriage’ shows:

‘A careful study of Canon B30 and other material on marriage and human sexuality produced by the Church of England during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries shows that it has not departed from the basic doctrine of marriage found in the historic formularies of the Church of England. Like the homily on marriage in The Second Book of Homilies, what is said in this more recent material sometimes restates what is said in the formularies in different words and sometimes it supplements it in order to address issues that are important at a particular time. However, what it does not do is reject the basic doctrine concerning marriage found in the formularies. Rather, it has remained consciously loyal to it.

This means that we can say that the Church of England has a consistent doctrine regarding marriage that is found in the historic formularies and that has continued to be re-affirmed by the Church of England to the present day. This doctrine can be summarised as follows.

• There is only one kind of marriage and one theology of marriage.

• Marriage is a state of life ordained by God himself at creation and as such it is a way of life that applies to all people at all times and everywhere. Any state of life that does not accord with the form of marriage ordained by God is not marriage.
• It is a serious vocation to which some, but not all, human beings are called by God. Those who are called to enter into it must do so with due thought and reverence for its God given character. Marriage and singleness are two ways of life, neither of which is necessarily more holy than the other. 
• It is a sexually exclusive relationship entered into for life between one man and one woman, who are not married to anyone else, and who are not close blood relatives.
• It is a relationship of ‘perpetual, friendly fellowship’ that is not a dominical sacrament in the same way as Baptism or the Lord’s Supper, but is a sign pointing to the loving union that exists between Christ and his Church and a means of grace through which a husband and wife can grow as the people God created them to be.
• It is a relationship that provides the sole proper context for sexual intercourse and which has as one of its key purposes the procreation and nurturing of children to be the next generation of God’s people.’

As the paper goes on to note:

‘The following would be contrary to, or indicative of a departure from, this doctrine as summarised above.

• Teaching that there can be more than one form or theology of marriage.

• Teaching that marriage is a human invention that human societies consequently have the right to modify as they see fit.
• Teaching that marriage is a sacrament in the same way as the two dominical sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
• Teaching that people can be married in a way that does not correspond to the form of marriage ordained by God (including being married to someone of the same sex).
• Teaching that it is not contrary to God’s will to engage in sexual activity outside marriage.
• Teaching that the procreation and the nurture of children is not a central purpose of marriage.
• Teaching that marriage is a superior vocation to singleness or vice versa.
• A form of ecclesiastical discipline that permits the liturgical marking of non-marital relationships as if they were marriages (including both Civil Partnerships and same-sex civil marriages).
• A form of ecclesiastical discipline that permits the blessing of sexual relationships outside marriage as if these were not contrary to the will of God for his human creatures and therefore sinful.’

What the bishops need to show is that what they are proposing should be commended under Canon B5 and authorised under Canon B2 does not fall short with regard to any of these latter points,  because if it does then it will be contrary to clause (g) of the motion passed by Synod and, in the case of forms of prayer, also contrary to Canon B2.1 and Canon B5.3 and therefore open to legal challenge. It is not enough for the bishops to say that they think that the prayers are in accord with the Church’ doctrine. They have to demonstrate that they are.

Thus far in the PLF process they have not done so, and the press release gives no indication of how (if at all) they propose to do so in the future. Unless and until they do so General Synod and the Church of England as whole will need to reject what they are proposing.

The fourth thing to note is that while the press release says that work is being done on pastoral guidance relating to the life and work of clergy and lay ministers it is silent about when this guidance will come to Synod and (more importantly) what it will contain. However, such indications as we have suggest that it will move away from the current discipline that says that clergy have to be either married to someone of the opposite sex or sexually abstinent. This move would be contrary to the Church of England’s current doctrine which holds that members of the clergy are free to be either married or single depending on the particular vocation to which God calls them, but they must live in a godly way in either vocation, which in turn means that clergy are not free to enter into sexual relationships outside marriage (marriage here being understood as marriage to someone of the opposite sex). It follows that the bishops will need to have a process to formally change the Church of England’s doctrine on this point and in the light of Article XX they will need to be able to show that such a change will not be contrary to Scripture.

The fifth thing to note is that the press release gives no indication of the kind of ‘pastoral reassurance and formal structural pastoral provision’ that will be provided in order ‘to ensure that the conscience of everyone is respected.’ The indications we have had thus far are that the reassurance will consist of saying that clergy and churches will not have to use the proposed prayers or permit their use and that the pastoral provision will consist of some kind of pastoral support from a bishop who holds to their theological position for those who feel they require it.  If this is the case then what is offered will fail to address the problems of conscience that the PLF proposals may cause. It would not, for example, address the problems of conscience that would be caused for a member of the clergy, a lay minister, or an entire parish church who were unable to accept as their ordinary a bishop who affirmed the blessing of same-sex relationships on the grounds that he or she had become heretical. It would also fail to address the problems of conscience for a bishop who felt that he or she could not in good conscience permit the use of prayers of blessing for same sex-couples, or recommend for training, ordain, or licence those in sexually active same-sex relationships.

Furthermore, the bishops need to do more than offer a temporary fix. If, as the Bishop of London is quoted as saying in the press release, the bishops genuine ‘desire is to remain together as one Church …. finding ways to live well with our different perspectives and convictions’ then they have to offer a guaranteed long-term solution to the needs of those who cannot accept any form of recognition of same-sex sexual relationships as being in accordance with the will of God.

As the Church of England Evangelical Council has argued,[2] only a structural solution at the provincial level will allow people’s consciences to be properly respected in both the short and long terms. This is because only a provincial solution will allow both sides in the current disagreement about sexuality to freely exercise their convictions, secure in the knowledge that these convictions have guaranteed protection under a provincial code of canon law that the Church of England as a whole cannot override. One of the really unfortunate things about the present situation in the Church of England is the failure of the bishops to engage seriously with a provincial solution to the Church’s current difficulties. This needs to change.

The sixth and final thing that needs to be noted is that it is the responsibility of everyone in the Church of England to highlight the problems with the House of Bishops’ proposals noted in this paper. If we are not on Synod ourselves we need to contact our bishops or our other Synod representatives and say that what the bishops are proposing as set out in the press release simply will not do. The orthodoxy and unity of the Church of England are in jeopardy and all of us need to do all we can to address the situation.

Those who are bishops and recognize the problems with what the House is proposing have a particular duty to speak out. As the stewards of the household of God and chief shepherds of the Lord’s flock they have an individual responsibility to give leadership to the Church and if this means publicly disagreeing with their episcopal colleagues then it is their duty to do so.  The accountability of bishops before God extends as much to what they fail to say as to what they do say and they need to remember this fact. They will not be able to say to God at the final judgement that it was the archbishops’ fault or the fault of their brother and sister bishops. If they fail to speak out when they should have done then that is their responsibility.

Appendix – a biblical approach to the issue of blessing.

As I argue in my book With God’s Approval? from which the following extract is taken, not only does the proposal to permit the blessing of same-sex couples go against the doctrine of the Church of England, it also goes against what the Bible teaches both about the nature of blessing and about God’s sovereignty and consistency.

‘Not only have the bishops failed to make the case for the Church of England to bless same-sex sexual relationships, it is also clear that it would be impossible for anyone to do this.

The reason for that is because God is sovereign in blessing. According to Scripture it is God who decides to bless, and decides what blessing shall involve. Human beings do not get a say in the matter. They cannot determine who or what God will and will not bless.

As David Stubbs notes in his commentary on Numbers, this truth is highlighted in the story of Balak and Balaam in Numbers 22-24. Here we are told how Balak, king of Moab, hires the seer Balaam to curse the people of Israel, but Balaam repeatedly blesses them instead. To quote Stubbs:

‘Propositioned by Balak to curse Israel, Balaam in his activity as a seer comes into contact with YHWH the God of Israel. His interactions with YHWH challenge the assumptions of his typical magico-religious practices. The person of Balaam embodies the clash between two very different ways of envisioning and responding to God and gods.

The lesson of the text is clear: as opposed to the assumptions of typical magico-religious practises in the surrounding cultures, YHWH is not simply another God or spirit whose power can be used by magicians and kings to bring blessing and cursing as they see fit. The worldview represented by Balak is ultimately shown to be false. Balak’s unsuccessful attempt to control Balaam, and Balaam’s unsuccessful attempt to control his donkey, parody their lack of control over forces that are larger than they realise. Instead of Balak using God through Balaam to curse Israel, it is God who uses kings and prophets and magicians to bring forward God’s purposes of blessing. Many of the confessions and statements that Balaam makes also reflect this understanding by upholding the transcendence and freedom of God in light of human activity. In contrast to Balak’s statement in 22:6, Balaam says that he is subject to ‘the word of the LORD’ (24:13) and only in accordance with the will of God can he speak blessings or curses upon Israel. He counters Balak’s pretensions with statements that point to the ineffectiveness of these magical practises, turns his back on the rights of divination (24:1; cf 23:23), and confesses that his will cannot bring forth blessing or curse on its own (24:13).

While these chapters might be interpreted as merely pointing to YHWH being more powerful than the spiritual forces assumed in the world of Balak, we also see Balaam coming to a deeper understanding. God’s relationship to Israel is of a different quality altogether, the kind of relationship between gods and people that Balak and Balaam himself had presupposed. God cannot be controlled or manipulated. In fact, God transcends the battle of creaturely forces. In relation to such a God, the only proper role someone like Balaam can play is that of mediating God’s power, the proper role of the Israelite priest and prophet, as opposed to manipulating God’s power, the role often assumed by the seer or sorcerer. [3]

God’s freedom in blessing, highlighted in this story in Numbers, means that the role of the Church in blessing is to mediate God’s power by making its words of prayer the channel by which God blesses what he wishes to bless.’

Seen from this perspective the prayers of blessing at the end of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer are entirely proper. These prayers recall God’s acts of blessing in Scripture, and ask that God will continue this revealed pattern of blessing in the lives of the two people who have just been married.

‘O God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, bless these thy servants, and sow the seed of eternal life in their hearts; that whatsoever in thy holy Word they shall profitably learn, they may in deed fulfil the same. Look, O Lord, mercifully upon them from heaven, and bless them. And as thou didst send thy blessing upon Abraham and Sarah, to their great comfort, so vouchsafe to send thy blessing upon these thy servants; that they obeying thy will, and alway being in safety under thy protection, may abide in thy love unto their lives’ end; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[This Prayer next following shall be omitted, where the Woman is past child-bearing.]

O merciful Lord, and heavenly Father, by whose gracious gift mankind is increased: We beseech thee, assist with thy blessing these two persons, that they may both be fruitful in procreation of children, and also live together so long in godly love and honesty, that they may see their children Christianly and virtuously brought up, to thy praise and honour; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

O God, who by thy mighty power hast made all things of nothing; who also (after other things set in order) didst appoint, that out of man (created after thine own image and similitude) woman should take her beginning; and, knitting them together, didst teach that it should never be lawful to put asunder those whom thou by Matrimony hadst made one: O God, who hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual marriage and unity betwixt Christ and his Church: Look mercifully upon these thy servants, that both this man may love his wife, according to thy Word, (as Christ did love his spouse the Church, who gave himself for it, loving and cherishing it even as his own flesh,) and also that this woman may be loving and amiable, faithful and obedient to her husband; and in all quietness, sobriety, and peace, be a follower of holy and godly matrons. O Lord, bless them both, and grant them to inherit thy everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then shall the Priest say,

Almighty God, who at the beginning did create our first parents, Adam and Eve, and did sanctify and join them together in marriage; Pour upon you the riches of his grace, sanctify and bless you, that ye may please him both in body and soul, and live together in holy love unto your lives’ end. Amen.’

Underlying these prayers are two fundamental Christian beliefs. God is sovereign and God is consistent. Because God is sovereign, he decides the nature of blessing, but because God is consistent, we can expect him to act now in line with how he has acted in the past. What God has blessed; we can expect him to continue to bless.

By contrast with these prayers from the Prayer Book marriage service, prayers for the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships go against belief in God’s sovereignty and consistency.[4]

In effect, even if not in intention, such prayers go against God’s sovereignty because they assume that we can rightly ask God to bless forms of relationship that according to Scripture he has never decided to bless. According to Scripture, God has decided to bless marriage between a man and a woman, and sexual activity in that context. What is now being proposed is that we can also ask God to bless same-sex sexual relationships and marriages as well, even though there is nothing at all in Scripture that says he wishes to do so. This means that either the prayers are pointless, or we think we can go back to the magico-religious approach rejected in Numbers and make God bless what we want him to bless.

Such prayers also go against God’s consistency. Scripture makes clear that same-sex sexual activity (and by extension same-sex marriage) are forms of sin which are inconsistent with the trusting obedience to God necessary to receive God’s blessing. In effect, even if not in intention, prayers for the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships involve saying that we no longer have to take what God says about the matter in Scripture as binding. God has (apparently) changed his mind and is now happy to bless such relationships. Why else would we pray for him to do so? However: ‘God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it?   Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?’ (Numbers 23:19).’

The Prayers of Love and Faith proposals mean that we stand at a critical moment in the history of the Church of England. We will have to decide whether we will allow God to be God or whether we will instead go our own way, invoking the name of God in support of things which are contrary to his will.  As we face this choice let us turn to God in prayer asking that he will give us the grace to make the right decision.

‘O Lord, we beseech thee mercifully to receive the prayers of thy people which call upon thee and grant that they may both perceive and know what things they ought to do, and also may have grace and power faithfully to do the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

(The collect for the First Sunday after Epiphany in the Book of Common Prayer)  [5]

---

[1] The Church of England, ‘Prayers of Love and Faith: Bishops agree next steps to bring to Synod’ at :https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/prayers-love-and-faith-bishops-agree-next-steps-bring-syno

[2] The Church of England Evangelical Council, Visibly Different at: https://ceec.info/wpcontent/uploads/2022//visibly_different_an_introduction_for_the_next_steps_group.pdf#:~:text=That%20briefing%20paper%2C%20Visibly%20Different %2C%20was%20presented%20to,is%20not%20an%20agreed%20statement%20by%20the%20CEEC.

[3] David Stubbs, Numbers (London: SCM, 2009), pp180-181

[4] Whether the language used is that of blessing same-sex sexual relationships, or praying for the blessing of such relationships, or seeking for God’s blessing in relation to such relationships, the point remains the same. Prayer is being offered that God will act to bless the relationship concerned.

[5] Martin Davie, With God’s Approval? (Oxford: Dictum, 2023), pp.53-60.

Bishops in Communion and Prayers in Love and Faith

To say that the House of Bishops Occasional Paper Bishops in Communion, published in 2000, is not well known is an understatement. Twenty-three years after its publication very few people in the Church of England even know of its existence. However, despite this fact, Bishops in Communion remains an important document because the understanding of how bishops are meant to conduct their ministry which it puts forward continues to shape the way in which bishops operate in the Church of England today.

To put it another way, the actions that the bishops of the Church of England have taken, and continue to take, during the Prayers of Love and Faith process directly reflect the thinking about the role of bishops which is found in the pages of Bishops in Communion.

This becomes particularly clear if you look at what Bishops in Communion has to say about the role of Church of England bishops in ‘the discerning of the mind of Christ for the Church’ on ‘complex issues of faith, order and moral teaching’[1] (the sort of situation which the Church of England is facing today).

Bishops in Communion declares that:

‘The role of the bishops is to keep the discussion open until the consensus is formed. Consensus does not necessarily mean coming to a single opinion. It may mean agreeing that for the foreseeable future different views may continue to be held with integrity until the mind of Christ becomes clear, not only for the Church of England, or indeed even the Anglican Communion, but for the whole Church. It is the duty of individual bishops and the college [of bishops] to oversee the ongoing process of discernment and open reception and to see that those of different opinions go on in dialogue listening to, and learning from, one another.’[2]

The model of episcopal ministry set out in this quotation sees bishops as facilitators. The job of the bishops, it says, is to ensure that dialogue between those of different views continues until a consensus emerges about the mind of Christ for his Church. This understanding of the bishops’ role is what shaped the Living in Love and Faith Process. The whole point of that process was to encourage an open process of discernment across the Church of England between those with different views about human sexuality.

If this is indeed the model that is shaping the way that the bishops are acting, it follows that the existence of the Prayers of Love and Faith proposals following on from Living and Love and Faith must mean that the bishops collectively believe that a new consensus has been reached. This is because although the final details are not yet clear, it is fairly obvious that what the House of Bishops is seeking to implement is a change in the position of the Church of England to allow for prayers to mark and celebrate same-sex relationships, to acknowledge the legitimacy of faithful sexual relationships outside marriage, and to abandon the current discipline that those who are ordained should not be in sexually active same-sex relationships. Unless the bishops have become totally apostate this must be because they (or at least a majority of them) believe that a consensus has emerged that the ‘mind of Christ’ is that such a change in the position of the Church of England should take place.

There are two problems with this approach.

The first problem is that there is no evidence for thinking that there is a consensus in the Church of England, let alone in the Anglican Communion, or the Catholic Church as a whole, for the sorts of change in the position of the Church of England that I have just outlined. In the case of the Church of England there is uncertainty about the level of support for these kinds of changes,[3] but there can be no doubt that the level of support for them for them does not amount to a consensus in favour of such changes . There are very many in the Church of England who remain strongly opposed to them. Furthermore, in terms of the Anglican Communion and the Church as a whole, the evidence we have indicates that only a small minority supports a change in traditional Christian sexual ethics. This being the case, the question that arises is why the bishops appear to think it is legitimate to proceed in the way that they are seeking to do when there is no consensus either within the Church of England or the Church worldwide about the legitimacy of moving in this direction.

It should also be noted that the debate and subsequent vote on the bishops’ Prayers of Love and Faith proposal that took place in General Synod last February made it abundantly clear that there was not even a Synodical consensus on the matter. Furthermore, the authority eventually given to the House of Bishops by the majority of Synod to take forward the Prayers of Love and Faith project was not absolute. Synod voted to support the project with the proviso that the bishops’ intention was ‘ that the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England.’ [4] Unless the House of Bishops can show (and not merely assert)  that what it has subsequently produced is in line with this proviso, then what it has produced will lack legitimate authority within the Church of England’s structure of church government. The House of Bishops only has the legal authority to do what Synod has agreed that it should do.

The second and more fundamental problem is that the model of episcopal activity set out in Bishops and Communion is a misleading one. As we have seen, it suggests that the bishops’ job  is to facilitate discussion until a consensus emerges. What it does not address is the fact that the bishops’ role involves taking action to try to form a truthful consensus.

 As Bishop John Jewel famously  pointed out in his Apology for the Church of England there can be a consensus in error. As he notes: ‘there was  the greatest consent that might be amongst them that worshipped the golden calf, and among them which with one voice jointly cried out against our Saviour Jesu Christ, ‘Crucify him.’’[5]  As those called ‘banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same’ [6] it is the job of the bishops to seek to ensure that such a consensus in error does not exist, but that on the contrary the Church of England either remains, or becomes, united in acceptance of the truth of God revealed in Scripture.

Until the second half of the twentieth century the universal consensus of the Christian Church has been, in the words of C S Lewis, that the sole legitimate pattern for sexual ethics to be found in Scripture  is ‘Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.’ [7] In addition, there has been an equally universal consensus that marriage is the relationship between two people of the opposite sex instituted by God at creation (Genesis 2:18-25). [8]  In order to justify the kind of changes they want to introduce, the bishops would have to show either that this universal consensus was wrong, or that it was previously right, but that God now wants a new form of sexual ethics to replace it. Thus far the bishops have failed to show either, and unless and until they do, they cannot plausibly argue that the changes they want to introduce reflect a new  consensus in truth.

Bishops in Communion goes on to say that the model of episcopal activity for which it argues raises the question:

‘….how far it is legitimate, once the college [of bishops} has come to a common mind, for any individual bishop to teach what is contrary to the consensus of the college. While the Church must make room for the prophetic voice, there is a particular responsibility on bishops to honour the consensus of the college, especially when this has been articulated after careful and prayerful reflection and in consultation with the people of God. Collegiality can sometimes impose limitations on the ministry of a bishop, yet there may be occasions when, in conscience, an individual bishop feels compelled to resist the common mind.’ [9]

Two points arise in relation to this further statement.

First, it needs to be noted that although there has been a complete lack of transparency about the discussions relating to Prayers of Love and Faith that have taken place at meetings of the House and College of Bishops, the evidence that we do have indicates that the bishops are not of one mind. The two archbishops are strongly pushing a particular position, but it appears that while a majority of bishops are willing to go with this line, a substantial minority disagree with it. If this is the case, then the argument that those bishops who disagree need to ‘honour the consensus of the college’ carries no weight. There is no consensus for them to honour. This means that bishops who stand by the universal historic consensus of the Church outlined above have the absolute freedom to say that they disagree with the majority position (and why) and to refuse to implement it.

What is more, not only do bishops in this position have the right to do this, but they also have an obligation to do so. They should feel conscientiously  ‘compelled to resist the common mind’ of their episcopal brothers and sisters because, as mentioned already, all bishops are called to ‘banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same’ and resisting unbiblical proposals from their episcopal colleagues is a necessary part of doing this.

It is important to note the use of the word ‘openly’ in the 1662 Ordinal. It is not enough for bishops to privately dissent. As those called to be public teachers and defenders of the faith they have to make their dissent public, and for their public dissent to be credible they also have to put into practice by, for example, issuing an ad clerum declaring that the Prayers of Love and Material should not be used in the parishes over which they have jurisdiction, and by refusing to recommend for training, ordination, or licensing any person who is not prepared to commit to sexual abstinence outside heterosexual marriage. Obviously, this is a very hard ask since it will bring enormous opprobrium upon the bishops concerned and may even bring votes of no confidence and calls for them to resign. Nevertheless, it has to be done, because if bishops are not prepared to actively resist in this way, then ‘erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s word’ will triumph and ultimately  the bishops concerned will have to answer to God for their failure to protect their flocks from the wolves who want to lead them astray (see Acts 20:28-30).

This a point emphasised by Augustine in Sermon 339, which was preached in about 425 on the anniversary of his ordination as a bishop. In this sermon Augustine stresses that being a bishop is a serious burden because it involves being accountable to God for the people for whom he is the bishop. He writes:

‘This, you  see, is the difference between each one  of you  and me,  that you, practically speaking, are only going to render an  account for yourselves alone, while I shall be giving one both for myself and for you. That’s why the  burden is so much greater; but  carried well it wins greater glory, while if it is handled unfaithfully, it hurls one down into the  most appalling punishment.’[10]

Referring to Jesus’ parable of the pounds in Luke 19:11-27, Augustine goes on to say that it terrifies him because it tells him of his responsibility as a bishop to pay out what he has been given by God, or, in other words, to teach his people what he himself has been taught by God through the Bible whether they want to hear it or not.

‘I could easily say, you see, ‘What business is it of  mine to  be wearisome to people; to say  to the  wicked, ‘Don’t act  wickedly, act  like  this, stop   acting like that’? What business is it of mine to be burdensome to people? I’ve received instructions how I should live; let me live as I’ve been told to,  as I’ve been commanded. Let me sign for what I have received; why should I give an  account for  others?’ The gospel terrifies me; because nobody could outdo me  in enjoying such anxiety-free leisure. There’s nothing better, nothing more pleasant than to search through the  divine treasure chest’ with nobody making a commotion; it’s  pleasant, it’s  good. But  to preach, to refute, to rebuke, to build up, to manage for  everybody, that’s a great burden, a great weight, a great labour. Who wouldn’t run away from this labour? But the  gospel terrifies me.’[11]

Bishops today need to learn from Augustine to be equally terrified and this terror needs to lead them to speak and act publicly in order to instruct and protect the flock God has put in their charge.

A final point that needs to be noted is that the obligation to resist just mentioned cannot be satisfied by passing day to day pastoral care of parishes and the ordination of clergy to bishops who are prepared to support the Prayers 0f Love and Faith proposals. This is because if it is wrong for a bishop to personally perform a particular action it is equally wrong for him or her to agree to another bishop performing it in his or her stead. They would still be complicit in action which they conscientiously believe to be contrary to the will of God and answerable to God for so doing.

This in turn means that protection of episcopal consciences has to mean allowing bishops the power of absolute veto, which in turn means the end of any consistent national policy in the matters covered by the Prayers of Love and Faith proposals. There will be a chaotic situation in which what is allowed will vary from diocese to diocese. To put it simply, you can either have a consistent national policy, or you can allow bishops to act according to their consciences. You cannot have both. This is one of the key reasons why the sort of provincial solution proposed by the Church of England Evangelical Council needs to be implemented if the majority of the bishops, and a majority in Synod, want to  persist in trying to introduce a more liberal sexual ethic and discipline into the Church of England, since this would allow there to be a clear and consistent policy within each of the provinces concerned. [12]

---

[1] The House of Bishops, Bishops in Communion (London: CHP, 2000), p.42.

[2] Bishops in Communion, p.43.

[3] See, for instance, Ian Paul ‘What do Anglican clergy think about ‘Christian’ Britain, sexuality, and clergy morale?’ Psephizo, 31 August 2023, at https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-do-anglican-clergy- think-about-christian-britain-sexuality-and-clergy-morale.

[4] The Church of England, ‘Prayers for God’s blessing for same-sex couples take step forward after Synod debate at https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/prayers-gods-blessing-same-sex -couples-take-step-forward-after-synod.

[5] John Ayre (ed), The Works of John Jewel, the third portion (Cambridge: Parker Society/CUP, 1848), p.69.

[6] 1662 Ordinal, ‘The Form of Ordaining or Consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop.’ 

[7] C S Lewis, Mere Christianity (Glasgow: Fount, 1984), p. 86.

[8] It is this consensus that is reflected in the Marriage Service in the Book of Common Prayer and subsequently in Canon B.30

[9][9] Bishops in Communion, p.43.

[10] Augustine, Sermon 339:1 in Edmund Hill (ed), Augustine Sermons III/9  (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1994) p.279.

[11] Augustine, Sermon 339:4, p.282.

[12] See CEEC, Visibly Different at https://ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/visibly_different_-

 _dated_26_july_2020.pdf