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.