Would a provincial solution require parliamentary approval?

A couple of weeks ago, I asked a well-informed conservative member of the Church of England why he thought it was that the House of Bishops seemed reluctant to even consider the idea of a provincial solution to the Church of England’s current impasse over issues to do with human sexuality as proposed by the Church of England Evangelical Council. His answer was that one of the key reasons was that the bishops believed that there was no point in considering a provincial solution because Parliament would never vote for such a development.

Prima facie this argument seems persuasive, but it should be rejected for two reasons.  

First parliamentary approval would only be needed for a provincial solution which involved the creation of a new province (for either conservatives or liberals) in addition to the existing provinces of Canterbury and York. It would not be needed for a re-arrangement of the Church of England’s current diocesan and provincial structure that did not involve the creation of an additional province.

Secondly, even if a provincial solution involving an additional third province would have to involve the Church of England bringing  a proposal to Parliament for approval, this should not be regarded as a reason for not trying to bring such a solution about.

In order to understand why these two counter arguments have force, the first thing that needs to be understood is that the legislation which requires the Church of England to bring church legislation to Parliament for approval is The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919.

Sections 3 and 4 of this act state:  

‘(1) Every measure passed by the General Synod shall be submitted by the Legislative Committee [of the Church Assembly] to the Ecclesiastical Committee, together with such comments and explanations as the Legislative Committee may deem it expedient or be directed by the Church Assembly to add.

(2)The Ecclesiastical Committee shall thereupon consider the measure so submitted to it, and may, at any time during such consideration, either of its own motion or at the request of the Legislative Committee, invite the Legislative Committee to a conference to discuss the provisions thereof, and thereupon a conference of the two committees shall be held accordingly.

(3)After considering the measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee shall draft a report thereon to Parliament stating the nature and legal effect of the measure and its views as to the expediency thereof, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty’s subjects.

(4)The Ecclesiastical Committee shall communicate its report in draft to the Legislative Committee, but shall not present it to Parliament until the Legislative Committee signify its desire that it should be so presented.

(5)At any time before the presentation of the report to Parliament the Legislative Committee may, either, on its own motion or by direction of the Church Assembly, withdraw a measure from further consideration by the Ecclesiastical Committee; but the Legislative Committee shall have no power to vary a measure of the Church Assembly either before or after conference with the Ecclesiastical Committee.

(6)A measure may relate to any matter concerning the Church of England, and may extend to the amendment or repeal in whole or in part of any Act of Parliament, including this Act:

Provided that a measure shall not make any alteration in the composition or powers or duties of the Ecclesiastical Committee, or in the procedure in Parliament prescribed by section four of this Act.

(7)No proceedings of the Church Assembly in relation to a measure shall be invalidated by any vacancy in the membership of the Church Assembly or by any defect in the qualification or election of any member thereof.’

When the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have reported to Parliament on any measure submitted by the Legislative Committee, the report, together with the text of such measure, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if not, then immediately after the next meeting of Parliament, and thereupon, on a resolution being passed by each House of Parliament directing that such measure in the form laid before Parliament should be presented to His Majesty, such measure shall be presented to His Majesty, and shall have the force and effect of an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto in the same manner as to Acts of Parliament:

Provided that, if upon a measure being laid before Parliament the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons acting in consultation, shall be of opinion that the measure deals with two or more different subjects which might be more properly divided, they may, by joint agreement, divide the measure into two or more separate measures accordingly, and thereupon this section shall have effect as if each of the measures resulting from such division had been laid before Parliament as a separate measure.’ [1]

The reference to the Church Assembly in the act is a bit confusing, but what it reflects is the fact that for the purposes of this legislation the General Synod now acts as the Church Assembly but with a new name.

The key thing to note in relation the 1919 act, is that the only matters which the Ecclesiastical Committee gets to consider, and on which Parliament gets to vote,  are new measures proposed by General Synod, or amendments by General Synod to existing measures. Other pieces of ecclesiastical legislation do not require parliamentary approval.

The question therefore arises whether the establishment of a new provincial structure for the Church of England would require a new measure, or the amendment of an existing measure, and hence parliamentary approval.

In order to answer this question, the first point that needs to be understood is that Part II section 3 (1) of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007,[2] lays down that the Church of England’s Dioceses Commission has the duty:

‘…. to keep under review the provincial and diocesan structure of the Church of England and, in particular—

a)the size, boundaries and number of provinces,

(b)the size, boundaries and number of dioceses and their distribution between the provinces, and

(c)the number and distribution of episcopal offices and the arrangements for episcopal oversight.’

Part II section 3(3) then goes on to lay down that:

‘If, when carrying out its functions under subsections (1) and (2) above, the Commission publishes proposals to alter the number of provinces, it shall also include, in those proposals, recommendations concerning the method of achieving the changes required by the proposals.’

Part II section 4.3 (a-d) further adds that:

‘A reorganisation scheme may make provision for one or more of the following purposes—

(a)the foundation of one or more new diocesan bishoprics with one or more dioceses constituted from one or more existing dioceses and, if necessary, the dissolution of one or more existing dioceses and the abolition of the bishopric or bishoprics thereof;

(b)the transfer of the whole of the area of any diocese to another diocese and the dissolution of the first mentioned diocese and the abolition of the bishopric thereof;

(c)the transfer of parts of the area of any diocese to one or more other dioceses and, if necessary, the dissolution of the first mentioned diocese and the abolition of the bishopric thereof;

(d)the transfer of a diocese or parts of the area of any diocese from one province to another.’

Taken together, what these three sections of the measure mean is that neither the number of the provinces of the Church of England, nor the dioceses they contain are immutable.  They can be changed, just as the number of provinces in the Church of England and the number and identity of its dioceses have been changed in the past. This means that it would be possible to create a provincial solution in which the existing provinces of Canterbury and York remained in place, but in which a new set of dioceses was created within them to cover (a) those parishes who wanted to retain the Church of England’s traditional doctrine and practice with regard to sexuality and (b) those parishes who wished to change it.[3]

Such a reorganisation scheme could thus be proposed  by the Dioceses Commission within the scope of the 2007 measure, and if approved by General Synod following the procedure laid down in the measure the scheme could then be approved by an Order in Council, as laid down in Part II (8) of the measure,  without  requiring Parliamentary approval.

Under Part II section  3(3) the Dioceses Commission could also recommend creating a new province in addition to Canterbury and York and creating new dioceses to be part of it. It would then also presumably need to recommend making provision for the creation of a third archbishop to exercise jurisdiction within this new province.

However, unlike the re-organisation of existing provinces, the implementation of such a scheme would seem to require parliamentary in addition to synodical approval.

This is not because parliamentary approval would be needed for the creation of new dioceses or even a new archbishop  (which could be achieved by royal assent to, and synodical promulgation of, an amendment to Canon C17), but because of the need to amend the Synodical Government Measure 1969.[4] This measure (and Canons H.1-3 which reflect it) only make reference to the Convocations and Houses of Laity of the provinces of Canterbury and York. This means that amendments to the measure would need to be made to include references to the Convocation and House of Laity of the new province as well. Such amendments would require parliamentary approval under the 1919 act.

However, the mere fact that parliamentary approval would be required does not means that a provincial solution involving a third province should not be attempted. This is because there are three good arguments for saying that members of Parliament should approve rather than block such amendments.

First, by giving its approval to the 2007 measure Parliament has given the Church of England the responsibility to review and reform its existing diocesan and provincial structure through a synodical process leading to an Order in Council. It would be perverse of Parliament to prevent the Church of England undertaking its responsibility in this matter by blocking consequential amendments to the Synodical Government Measure. Parliament would in effect be preventing a lawful process taking effect.

Secondly, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, the creation of a new provincial structure would not be a ‘homophobic’ move that Parliament should therefore reject as contrary to ‘the constitutional rights of all His Majesty’s subjects.’  

This is because a  provincial solution would allow those supportive of lesbian and gay relationships to achieve the changes in the Church of England’s doctrine and practice  that they want to see, and which would not otherwise take place given the lack of the necessary 2/3 majority in Synod for them, while also allowing the effective exercise of freedom of conscience to those who could not conscientiously accept such changes. 

Furthermore, not making effective provision for those conscientiously opposed would go against the principle of respect for freedom of conscience  in matters of religion already reflected in the Equality Act of 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The right of religious believers to act in accordance with their conscience in relation to same-sex relationships is specifically protected by both these acts, and a refusal by Parliament to allow a particular form of such protection, which the Church of England had already decided was necessary, would be refusal to follow this precedent, and  would thus arguably breach the constitutional rights of the King’s subjects.

Thirdly, the previous two points mean that refusal by Parliament to agree to the necessary amendments to the Synodical Government Measure would constitute an arbitrary refusal by Parliament to let the Church of England exercise the power of self-government given to it in 1919. If Parliament were to do this it would create a very serious crisis in the relationship between Parliament and the Church of England, and this is hopefully something that members of Parliament would wish to avoid.

---

[1] The Act can be found online at  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/9-10/76/contents

[2] This measure can be found online at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2007/1/contents.

[3] It might perhaps be argued that the 2007 measure does not make provision for changes in the provinces or dioceses of the Church of England to accommodate differences in theological and ethical conviction. This is true, but what is also true is that it does not rule them out either. The measure does not lay down any rule that says that changes to the provinces or dioceses may be made for some reasons and not for others.  

[4] This measure can be found online at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1969/2/contents.

Geographical episcopacy – a further response to Charlie Bell.

In my previous article on this site I responded to Charlie Bell’s article ‘Finding a way through’ by explaining that the proposal put forward by the Church of England Evangelical Council and the wider Alliance movement for a provincial solution to the current divisions over marriage and sexual ethics in the Church of England is not contrary to Anglican ecclesiology and would allow both liberals and conservatives in the Church of England to get what they want. Given that this is the case, I finished my post by asking why this proposal is considered problematic by Bell and others on the liberal side.

Bell’s response to my article was to post the following on X:

‘Au contraire, Mr Davie. The position you set out here in both unachievable within Anglican ecclesiology (hello geographical nature of the episcopate) and this demonstrable nonsense as a starting point. Folks, you gotta do better than this.’

If we set aside the unsubstantiated claim that what I wrote was ‘demonstrable nonsense’ what we find is that Bell’s objection to the provincial proposal is that it is  out of line with Anglican ecclesiology because of the ‘geographical nature of the episcopate.’

In the remainder of this article I am going to look at the issue of the ‘geographical nature of the episcopate’ and explain why it does not preclude the provincial solution to the current divisions in the Church of England advocated by CEEC and the Alliance.

When thinking about the nature of the episcopate the first thing that need to be understood is that the first bishops of the Church were the apostles. They were the people who were given authority by Christ to exercise oversight (episcope) over the elders, deacons and lay people of the earliest churches.

As Richard Hooker notes in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,  the apostles were originally bishops ‘at large’ but in time some of them at least became bishops ‘with restraint.’ [1] What he means by this is that originally the apostles were given by Christ an indefinite commission not restricted to any one place, as we see in passages such as Matthew 28:19-20, John 21:15-17 and Acts 1:8. However, from the New Testament, and from later Church historians, we also learn that the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, subsequently put limits or ‘restraints’ on the exercise of their ministry. To quote Hooker again:

‘….notwithstanding our Saviour’s commandment unto them to go and preach unto all nations; yet some restraint we see there was made, when by agreement between Paul and Peter, moved with those effects of their labours which the providence of God brought forth, the one betook himself to the Gentiles, the other unto the Jews, for the exercise of that office of everywhere preaching. A further restraint of their apostolic labours as yet there was also made, when they divided themselves into several parts of the world; John for his charging taking Asia, and so the residue other quarters to labour in.’[2]

What was at first a general episcopal ministry exercised by the apostles thus became over the course of time a specific episcopal ministry relating to particular people and particular places.

The principle that episcopal ministry relates to particular people and particular places is one that has been observed in the Church ever since.

The episcopal ministry given to bishops at their ordination as bishops can in theory be exercised anywhere in the world. Thus, a  Church of England bishop can perfectly properly confirm or ordain not only in England, but in Hong Kong or San Francisco. However, for the sake of good order in the Church bishops are given particular responsibility for specific places or groups of people. Thus, in the Church of England the Bishop of Rochester has a particular responsibility for those who live in the diocese of Rochester (West Kent and the London Boroughs of Bromley and Bexley), whereas the Bishop to the Forces has a particular responsibility for British armed services personnel wherever they are in the world.

The responsibility that most bishops have for particular places is what is meant by ‘geographical episcopacy’ and since ancient times a bishop’s calling to exercise episcopal ministry in a particular area has been symbolized by that bishop being given an episcopal title relating to a particular place within that area (hence Bishop of Rochester).

The provincial proposal being advocated by CEEC and the Alliance would involve the exercise of geographical episcopacy as it would involve bishops having responsibility for particular geographical areas. I have previously made this point in a theoretical description of what a conservative third province (the ‘Province of Mercia’) might look like.

‘Like the existing provinces of Canterbury and York, the new province would consist of parishes, deaneries, archdeaconries and dioceses. The number of dioceses that would initially be formed would obviously depend on how many parishes opted to join the new province, but one possible pattern would be for there to initially be four dioceses, one in the Southwest, one in the South and Southeast, one in the Midlands and East Anglia, and one in the North. Chaplaincies in Europe would come under the diocese for the South and Southeast.

Each diocese would initially have one bishop and one of these would be the archbishop of the province. There would be no fixed archiepiscopal diocese and the office of archbishop would subsequently be held by the senior bishop of the province.

A parish church in each diocese would be the cathedral. This would contain the bishop’s chair and would be used for diocesan services such as the enthronement of the bishop, ordinations, and the renewal of ordination vows on Maundy Thursday. The diocese would be named after the location of the cathedral and the incumbent would carry the title Dean. There would be no cathedral chapter and when not being used for diocesan services the cathedral would act as a normal parish church.’

As can be clearly seen in this description the geographical nature of episcopacy would be maintained in such a provincial arrangement. Bell’s suggestion that the geographical nature of the episcopate precludes a provincial solution is therefore mistaken.

One objection that has been made to the sort of provincial arrangement that I have described above is that it would involve the parishes of the new province being dispersed across the diocesan territory of dioceses belonging to the other two provinces. However, this is not a serious objection. There is no ecclesiological principle that says all the parishes of a diocese have to form a single geographical unit rather than being geographically dispersed. Until the Victorian period it was common for parishes to be situated in the midst of other dioceses (the parish of Croydon being a famous example) and today the 140 chaplaincies of the Church of England’s Diocese of Europe are widely dispersed across Europe, Turkey and Morocco.

If we therefore set aside the issue of geographical episcopacy as a red herring, what I would still like to know is what other problems Dr Bell and others have with a provincial solution.

---

[1] Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,  Bk. VII.iv.1-2.

[2] Hooker, Bk.VII.iv.2. For the division of labours between Peter and Paul he cites Galatians2:8 and for John’s ministry in Asia Minor he cites Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk.III.16, andTertullian,  Against Marcion, Bk.IV.5.

A response to Charlie Bell – ‘Finding a Way Through.’

In his article ‘Finding a Way Through’ published on the ViaMedia.News website on 1 March Charlie Bell writes as follows about the request made by CEEC and the wider Alliance movement for ‘legally secure structural provision’ for conservatives in the Church of England who cannot in good conscience accept same-sex marriages, same-sex blessings, or the ordination of those in  sexually active same-sex relationships:

‘Simply shouting ‘legally secure structural provision’ doesn’t, frankly, do the trick, and is getting tiresome. For many – me included – these are questions not just about these prayers [the ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’], but about a fundamental threat to our ecclesiology. Casting our ecclesiology aside and creating a ‘pure’ church within a church in order to appease those who will never really be appeased is not a good strategy. Suggesting that we can remain in any serious way ‘one church’ whilst having ‘legally secure structural provision’ is a demonstrable nonsense.

So – let’s sit down and work out how we can move forwards. If you are a reasonable conservative who opposes these prayers on theological grounds, we can and want to work with you to enable you to flourish in the same church as us. We want to ensure you have pastoral provision that allows you to feel valued and loved – pastoral provision which, incidentally, has been cruelly withheld from so many LGBTQIA people for years. You do not have to buy into the lie that structural provision, with bishops out of communion with one another, special ordinations, confirmations, theological colleges, pseudo-provinces, and the rest of it, is the only answer – it isn’t, and it’s not going to happen. It just isn’t. We want you to feel supported, and we want to build each other up in the faith – and we can make this happen if we’re willing to put our minds to it, and ignore the extremes.’

I want to make a threefold response to what Bell says in these two paragraphs.

First, creating a new provincial structure for the Church of England  to provide for the differing positions of conservatives and liberals is not a ‘fundamental threat’ to the Church of England’s ecclesiology.

What CEEC is asking for is  internal differentiation within the Church of England by means of a re-configuration of the Church’s current provincial system. This could take the form of a new province for conservatives alongside Canterbury and York, a new province for liberals alongside Canterbury and York or a re-working of the two existing provinces to cover the whole country with conservatives in Canterbury and liberals in York. [1]

The key point to note about this proposal is that it is in line with the existing ecclesiology of the Church of England. The Church of England has historically consisted, and continues to consist, as a combination  of two separate provinces, each their own Archbishop (both of whom have metropolitical authority within their own province and neither of whom is subject to the other), and each having its own provincial synodical structure consisting of a provincial Convocation made up of the two Houses of Bishops and Clergy, and an attendant House of Laity.  A meeting of the General Synod is simply a joint meeting of these two provincial synods, and the two Convocations retain the power both  to veto legislation proposed in the General Synod and to make provision for matters relating to their province (see Canon H.1 and Article 7 of the Constitution of General Synod).

Adding another province into the mix, or reconfiguring the two existing provinces, would not alter this ecclesiological structure in any fundamental way.[2] What it would mean is that the two (or three)  provinces of the Church of England could continue to meet together in General Synod to debate and legislate on matters of common concern, while their provincial synods could legislate to either maintain or change the Church of England’s current teaching and practice with regard to marriage and human sexuality, thus allowing both conservatives and liberals to have what they are looking for  within their own province or provinces.

Each province would hold that the other province or provinces is (or are) part of the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and there would be transferability of ministry without re-ordination between them subject to a minister being prepared to accept the doctrine and discipline of the province to which he or she was transferring.   

The Church of England could thus stay together, but in a way which respected the conscientious convictions of both sides and would prevent the Church of England breaking apart entirely.

This approach would also give long term stability because General Synod would not be able to overrule the approach to marriage and sexuality taken by the separate provincial synods (since as at present convocations would be able to exercise a veto) and each province could set its own policy with regard to the future selection, training and appointment of clergy.

Contrary to what Bell claims this proposal is not ‘demonstrable nonsense’ since it would enable the Church of England to remain one church on exactly the same terms that it is one church today.  

Secondly, Bell assures conservatives that liberals like himself ‘want pastoral provision that allows you to feel valued and loved.’  However, conservatives have made clear that the pastoral provision that would make them feel ‘valued and loved’ in accordance with their theological convictions are precisely the things which Bell says they cannot  have, namely, their own provincial structure, their own bishops from whom they would receive confirmation and ordination and licensing, and their own theological education institutions in which students  would be trained for ministry on the basis of historic Anglican teaching (including historic Anglican teaching with regard to marriage and sexual ethics). This means that what Bell offers with one hand he takes away with the other. He says that wants to make conservatives valued and loved, but he wants to prohibit the course of action that would make that a reality.

Thirdly, Bell declares  concerning what conservatives have said they need: ‘it’s not going to happen. It just isn’t.’  My response is ‘Why not?’ All that will stop it happening is people like Bell being unwilling to allow it to happen and I really cannot see why they would wish to do so. The conservatives’ proposal is, as I have said, in line with the existing ecclesiology of the Church of England and it would result in both sides of the current disagreement in the Church of England getting what they want. So, what is the problem?

---

[1] See CEEC Visibly Different at https://ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/visibly_different_-_dated_26_july_2020.pdf and the CEEC video ‘We love the Church of England’ at https://ceec.info.

[2] Those who know their  church history may be aware that between 787 and 796 the Church of England consisted of three  Provinces,  since Lichfield was an archdiocese, and that the United Church ofEngland and Ireland which existed from 1800-1871 originally consisted of six provinces, Canterbury,York, Armagh, Dublin, Cashel  and  Tuam. The pattern of two provinces is therefore not cast in stone. Ithas been different in the past and could  be different again.

What do we mean by reconciliation?

In his opening speech in the debate on LLF in General Synod yesterday, Bishop Martyn Snow told Synod that  ‘The  missionary imperative for this day and age is reconciliation.’

I agree with him because the New Testament makes clear that the missionary imperative for every day and age is the ministry of reconciliation. We can see this if we turn to the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20:

‘All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.’

The important thing to understand with regard to these verses is that although the ‘us’ and the ‘we’ refer to Paul himself, this does not mean that that the ‘message of reconciliation’ is one that only Paul has been called to proclaim. Rather, just as all Christians (and not only Paul)  have been reconciled by God to himself through Christ, so also all Christians have been entrusted with the missionary imperative of sharing the message of reconciliation throughout the whole world and until the end of time.

If we go on to ask about the content of this message of reconciliation which Christians are called to share, we find Paul’s most comprehensive statement of its content in Ephesians 2:11-22 where Paul writes:

‘Therefore, remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—  remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end  And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;  for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,  built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;  in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.’

What we see in this passage is that God’s reconciling work in Christ has both a horizontal and vertical dimension. It reconciles Jews and Gentiles, but it does so on the basis of reconciling both to God through the cross of Christ. In the words of the Evangelical biblical commentator Thomas Scott:

‘… Thus Christ was the peacemaker between Jews and Gentiles: and at the same time, he reconciled both of them in one body unto God; for the ceremonial law implied man’s state of condemnation, pollution, and enmity against God; to whom he could not approach, except on a mercy seat, and by priests, sacrifices, incense, and purifications; being at last kept at a great distance from him: but the death of Christ upon the cross took away that guilt, which was the cause of the enmity; that so, a holy God might honourably pardon and be reconciled to his rebellious creatures; and it made way for the communication of his Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners and so to destroy the enmity of their hearts against the holy character, worship, and service of God. Having finished this great design he had come by his apostles and ministers, to preach peace with God, and with each other, to the Gentiles who had been far off; and to the Jews who were outwardly nigh to God. For through the Person, sacrificed, and mediation of Christ, sinners of all descriptions were allowed access to God, as a Father, and were introduced with acceptance into his presence, with their worship and services, under the immediate teaching and influence the Holy Spirit as one with the Father and the Son in this great work of salvation, as well as in the unity of the Godhead.’ [1]

In Ephesians 2:22 Paul describes the outcome of God’s reconciling work as the creation of a new temple, a holy place inhabited by people who have been made holy through the work of the Spirit. This temple is the Church and in the rest of Ephesians Paul goes on to describe what it means for Christians to live in the Church as people who have been reconciled to God and to each other through the death of Christ.

Two key points in this description are, first, that Christians are called to live in unity with one another  in a way of life marked by humility, patience, and love. In Paul’s words:

‘I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,  eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’ (Ephesians 4:1-3)

Secondly, in a first century social context marked by rampant sexual immorality, Christians, as those who have been reconciled to God, are to be people who not only refuse to practice such immorality. but even to talk to talk about it:

‘But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.’(Ephesians 5:3-6).

As John Stott explains, in these verses:

‘Paul turns from ‘self-sacrifice… to it’s very opposite, self-indulgence,’ from genuine ‘love’ to that perversion of it called ‘lust.’ The Greek words for fornication (porneia) and impurity (akatharsia) together cover every kind of sexual sin, in other words all sexual intercourse outside its God- ordained context of a loving marriage. To them Paul adds covetousness, surely because they are an especially degrading form of it, namely the coveting of somebody else’s body for selfish gratification. The tenth commandment had specifically prohibited coveting a neighbour’s wife, and earlier in this letter Paul has written of the ‘greed’ involved in unclean practises (4:19). So all forms of sexual immorality he writes, must not even be named among you. We are not only to avoid their indulgence, but also to avoid thinking and talking about them, so completely are they to be banished from the Christian community.’[2]

Paul also goes on in Ephesians 5:21-33 to describe the alternative to sexual immorality, namely,  a marriage between one man and one woman marked by a pattern of mutual subjection involving obedience from the wife and self-sacrificial love from the husband,  that reflects the archetypal love of Christ for his bride the Church of which earthly marriages are an image.

What all this means is that the Church, as a community of people who have been reconciled to God through Christ, is called to be a community which practices not only humility, patience and love, but also a community which completely rejects all forms of sexual immorality and practices godly heterosexual marriage instead. In this community there can be no room for same-sex sexual activity,  since this is a form of porneia, and no place for same-sex marriages since these are an ungodly human substitute for the form of marriage created by God to reflect Christ’s love for his Church.

The problem with the LLF/PLF debate  in the Church of England at the moment is that the majority of the bishops are promoting a truncated form of reconciliation, a form of reconciliation which emphasises quite rightly the virtues of humility, patience and love, but also gives liturgical recognition to sexual immorality in the form of the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships and same-sex marriages and the ordination of those involved in them.

The difficulty with this proposal is that the New Testament teaching about reconciliation does not permit of such truncation. It is not a menu from which you can choose some bits and not others. It is a single indivisible whole. If the bishops are truly serious about reconciliation being a missionary imperative for the Church of England they need to go away and think again.

---

[1] Thomas Scott, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with original notes and practical observations (London:1803).

[2] John Stott, The Message of Ephesians (Leicester and Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979), pp.191-192.

On not saying anything significant – a response to GS 2346

On not saying anything significant – a response to GS 2346

Back in the days when I used to work at Church House, London, I was told a story about a visit by a former Archbishop of Canterbury to an Anglican province in Africa. During this visit, the archbishop gave a sermon in English with a translator provided to give the archbishop’s message in the local language. According to the story, the archbishop gave his sermon in four sections, and it was noted that after each section the translator gave a single short sentence and then stopped. Curious about this, a member of the archbishop’s staff enquired as to what the translator had said. Eventually the embarrassed locals explained that the first time the translator said, ‘He hasn’t said anything,’ the second time he said ‘He still hasn’t said anything,’ the third time he said ‘He isn’t going to say anything,’ and the final time he said ‘I was right, he didn’t say anything.’

I was sadly remined of this story when I read GS 2346, Bishop Martin Snow’s new paper from the House of Bishops for General Synod, ‘Living, in Love, Faith and Reconciliation.’ [1] 

The paper is in four parts.

The first part ‘outlines ten draft commitments through which the whole Church can continue to pursue the implementation of the motions previously passed by Synod on Living in Love and Faith.’

The purpose of these commitments is: ‘1) cultivating unity as far as possible; 2) enabling as many as possible to stay within the Church of England; 3) equipping the Church’s mission to the nation.’

The commitments are as follows:

‘1. Humility and repentance – we will seek to embody the apology we have already made to LGBTQI+ people. We will call out homophobia and actively challenge it. At the same time, we will devote ourselves to Holy Scripture with an openness to all the Holy Spirit is saying to us through God’s word, acknowledging that at times this will be deeply uncomfortable and challenging for us all.

2. Honesty and transparency – we will ensure a transparent, honest process for LLF which fully includes the Houses of Laity and Clergy in General Synod and (as far as possible) Diocesan and Deanery Synods, as well as PCCs. We commit to listening to voices which are often absent from our discussions – in particular the voices of LGBTQI+ people, those of children and young people, and GMH people. We will seek the maximum possible level of transparency regarding legal advice given to the House of Bishops (acknowledging the complexities of such advice). We will ensure that LLF does not dominate agendas of the House / College of Bishops or Synod.

3. Reconciliation – we will prioritise reconciliation as our primary witness to wider society at this time. We will commit to being a ‘learning Church’ and to embodying the ‘habits’ of reconciliation (be curious, be present, reimagine). We will learn from other parts of the Anglican Communion where there have been serious splits (in some cases now deeply regretted). We will seek to appoint an interim “Independent Reviewer” as soon as possible, to monitor the practical outworkings of the bishops’ commitment to value and respect different theological understandings, to advise us, and to reassure those concerned about their future place within the Church.

4. Breadth – we will recognise the gifts of the different traditions within the Church. We will actively reflect on how these gifts are exchanged such that power is acknowledged and everyone – those who use the PLF and those who don’t – are afforded an honoured place within the Church. We will draw fully on the LLF Resources and the expertise of FAOC (allowing them time to do their work well). We will do everything we can to ensure that no-one feels pushed out of Church. We will seek a commitment to avoid using the civil courts to settle our disputes.

5. Freedom of conscience – we will ensure freedom of conscience in relation to PLF for all clergy and lay ministers. We acknowledge the complexities within this – society is not always tolerant of differences and therefore clergy and lay ministers will come under pressure from within and outside the Church. We will ask all bishops to commit to supporting all clergy and lay ministers whether they use the PLF or not.

6. Prayers – we are committed to the experimental use of standalone services of PLF, with legal protection and support for those who opt-in to using them as well as those who don’t. This includes completing the Pastoral Guidance and Pastoral Reassurance work before enabling the use of the standalone PLF.

7. Same-sex marriage – we will not begin any discussions about same-sex marriage in this quinquennium, and we make no commitments beyond this quinquennium. Rather we will learn from the use of the PLF and allow General Synod to decide when and if to begin any discussions about SSM.

8. Ministry – we commit to exploring the process for clergy and lay ministers to enter same-sex civil marriages. We recognise that not all bishops would be content to ordain or licence such ministers, and bishops must be allowed freedom of conscience in relation to LLF in the same way as clergy (point 5). This inevitably means that there may be different approaches across dioceses until such time as changes to Canons are considered (acknowledging a change of doctrine). In this scenario, bishops would need to commit to being transparent with candidates for ministry about their own personal approach and commit to exploring alternative national approaches for candidates who they, in conscience, could not sponsor. Bishops would also need to agree to resist attempts to use disciplinary processes to force deviation from these commitments.

9. Episcopacy – we will explore an approach to episcopacy which enables us to live well with difference and provides pastoral reassurance to all across the spectrum of views on LLF. We are committed to learning from the ‘1994 settlement’ and the ‘2014 settlement’, where (in the latter case) it was only the pain of the 2012 crisis that forced more serious cooperation across divides. We seek this cooperation now, and therefore we commit to exploring the minimum formal structural changes necessary to enable as many as possible to stay within the Church of England.

10. Communion and unity– we commit to seeking the highest possible degree of communion between ourselves, other Provinces of the Anglican Communion, and our ecumenical partners. As we seek a settlement within the Church of England, we will explore the idea of ‘degrees of unity’, recognising that there are ways of staying in relationship and working together even where there are fundamental disagreements.’

There are also three Annexes,  A, B and C.

Annex A:  ‘provides a summary of the differing Canonical routes that have been requested to be explored as a means of introducing PLF in Standalone Services. It summarises the processes these require and an assessment of primary advantages and disadvantages.’

Annex B: ‘outlines considerations around removing restrictions for clergy to enter into samesex civil marriages. It summarises background information previously discussed in the LLF  process and highlights additional work that has already been called for to support  discussions and decisions in the House of Bishops on this, and related, matters.’

Annex C:  ‘summarises the workstreams in the next phase of implementation of LLF. This overview illustrates the inter-connected and interdependent nature of this work that the commitments invite continued action to pursue. An updated indicative timetable is included.’

The reason the paper reminded me of the story about archbishop’s sermon is because having read it I was left feeling that nothing of real significance had been said.

In specific terms, this is because there are three key issues that the paper fails to address.

The first issue is whether the issues covered by Living in Love and Faith are adiaphora. The unstated assumption underlying the paper is that they are. Issues concerning marriage and human sexuality, it appears to say, are ones on which faithful Christians can legitimately agree to disagree, the only question is whether they disagree well or badly.

However, as the Anglican Communion’s Windsor Report of 2004 explains, it is not legitimate to simply assume that a matter upon which there is disagreement can be placed into the category of adiaphora.

To quote paragraphs 87-89 of the Windsor Report:

‘As the Church has explored the question of limits to diversity, it has frequently made use of the notion of adiaphora: things which do not make a difference, matters regarded as non-essential, issues about which one can disagree without dividing the Church. This notion lies at the heart of many current disputes. The classic biblical statements of the principle are in Romans 14.1-15.13 and 1 Corinthians 8-10. There, in different though related contexts, Paul insists that such matters as food and drink (eating meat and drinking wine, or abstaining from doing so; eating meat that had been offered to idols, or refusing to do so), are matters of private conviction over which Christians who take different positions ought not to judge one another. They must strive for that united worship and witness which celebrate and display the fact that they are worshipping the same God and are servants of the same Lord.

 This principle of ‘adiaphora’ was invoked and developed by the early English Reformers, particularly in their claim that, in matters of eucharistic theology, specific interpretations (transubstantiation was particularly in mind) were not to be insisted upon as ‘necessary to be believed’, and that a wider range of interpretations was to be allowed. Ever since then, the notion of ‘adiaphora’ has been a major feature of Anglican theology, over against those schools of thought, both Roman and Protestant, in which even the smallest details of belief and practice are sometimes regarded as essential parts of an indivisible whole.

This does not mean, however, that either for Paul or in Anglican theology all things over which Christians in fact disagree are automatically to be placed into the category of ‘adiaphora’. It has never been enough to say that we must celebrate or at least respect ‘difference’ without further ado. Not all ‘differences’ can be tolerated. (We know this well enough in the cases of, say, racism or child abuse; we would not say “some of us are racists, some of us are not, so let’s celebrate our diversity”). This question is frequently begged in current discussions, as for instance when people suggest without further argument, in relation to a particular controversial issue, that it should not be allowed to impair the Church’s unity, in other words that the matter in question is not as serious as some suppose. In the letters already quoted, Paul is quite clear that there are several matters – obvious examples being incest (1 Corinthians 5) and lawsuits between Christians before non-Christian courts (1 Corinthians 6) – in which there is no question of saying “some Christians think this, other Christians think that, and you must learn to live with the difference”. On the contrary: Paul insists that some types of behaviour are incompatible with inheriting God’s coming kingdom, and must not therefore be tolerated within the Church. ‘Difference’ has become a concept within current postmodern discourse which can easily mislead the contemporary western church into forgetting the principles, enshrined in scripture and often rearticulated within Anglicanism, for distinguishing one type of difference from another.’ [2]

Furthermore, to quote paragraphs 92-93 of the Windsor Report:

‘Even when the notion of ‘adiaphora’ applies, it does not mean that Christians are left free to pursue their own personal choices without restriction. Paul insists  that those who take what he calls the “strong” position, claiming the right to eat and drink what others regard as off limits, must take care of the “weak”, those who still have scruples of conscience about the matters in question – since those who are lured into acting against conscience are thereby drawn into sin. Paul does not envisage this as a static situation. He clearly hopes that his own teaching, and mutual acceptance within the Christian family, will bring people to one mind. But he knows from pastoral experience that people do not change their minds overnight on matters deep within their culture and experience.

 Whenever, therefore, a claim is made that a particular theological or ethical stance is something ‘indifferent’, and that people should be free to follow it without the Church being thereby split, there are two questions to be asked. First, is this in fact the kind of matter which can count as ‘inessential’, or does it touch on something vital? Second, if it is indeed ‘adiaphora’, is it something that, nevertheless, a sufficient number of other Christians will find scandalous and offensive, either in the sense that they will be led into acting against their own consciences or that they will be forced, for conscience’s sake, to break fellowship with those who go ahead? If the answer to the latter question is ‘yes’, the biblical guidelines insist that those who have no scruples about the proposed action should nevertheless refrain from going ahead.’ [3]

Like previous papers emanating from the House of Bishops, what  GS 2346 fails to explain is either (a) why issues of marriage and human sexuality can rightly be placed in the category of adiaphora, or (b) why it might be legitimate to go down the route of allowing the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships, marrying same-sex couples, and ordaining those in same-sex sexual relationships given that a large number of Christians in the Church of England, and a large majority of those in the Anglican Communion find this ‘scandalous and offensive.’  Until a convincing explanation can be given on both these points the approach taken in GS 2346 lacks theological legitimacy. Simply treating issues as if they are adiaphora does not make them so.

The second issue is that GS 2346 fails to explain how allowing  the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships, marrying same-sex couples, and ordaining those in same-sex sexual relationships is in line with Church of England doctrine, or if it is not, why that doctrine needs to be changed. 

As I pointed our in my previous paper ‘Mr Facing Both Ways,’[4] the Church of England officially continues to adhere to (a) the traditional Christian doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics, and (b) the traditional Christian doctrine that  visible holiness of life should be required of Christian ministers and this is simply incompatible with the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships, marrying same-sex couples, and ordaining those in same-sex sexual relationships. This means that the only way that these things can legitimately happen would be if the Church of England were to officially change its doctrine. Even assuming that the necessary 2/3 majority in all three Houses of General Synod could be obtained for such a change (which at present seems unlikely), for such a change to be legitimate it would have to be shown that it was in line with the teaching of Scripture, since, as Article XX declares: ‘it is not lawful for the Church of England to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s word written.’  Thus far in the LLF and PLF processes no one has shown that the necessary change would meet this requirement and GS 2346 itself does not even address the issue. It simply assumes that since a small majority in Synod has voted for change therefore change must be right.

The third issue is that GS 2346 does not engage at all with  what those opposed to the House of Bishops current approach have stated would be required in order for there to an agreed ‘settlement’ of the current divisions within the Church of England. The paper states that its ‘Ten Commitments are being offered in the hope that they will be a basis for a settlement,’ but unfortunately, they do not provide the basis for that goal.

The ninth of the ten commitments in GS 2346 declares ‘we commit to exploring the minimum formal structural changes necessary to enable as many as possible to stay within the Church of England.’ The problem is that the bishops know perfectly well what traditionalists in the Church of England have said is the minimum requirement for a long-term settlement in the Church of England. Namely, the creation of a third province within the Church of England in which the Church of England’s traditional teaching and practice with regard to marriage and human sexuality can continue to be upheld.[5]

 As CEEC has explained, there is no ecclesiological barrier to the creation of such a province. What is blocking its creation is the unwillingness of the bishops to engage constructively with this proposal and GS 2346 continues to take this approach.

GS 2346 talks vaguely about holding meetings with ‘stakeholders’ in order to move forward towards a settlement. Such vagueness is unhelpful. What it should have said is that the Bishops will meet with representatives of CEEC and the Alliance to discuss details of a third province so that a concrete proposal can then be brought forward to Synod. If they did this, it would unblock the current impasse within the Church of England. Liberals could have their own provinces in which they could implement those changes in doctrine and discipline they are seeking, while traditionalists could have what they need to remain in good conscience within the Church of England.

The failure of the GS 2346 to say anything useful in these three areas indicates the need for the bishops collectively to exhibit the ‘humility and repentance’ they are calling for from others by engaging in a genuine ‘reset’ of their own approach. Their current approach is untheological, goes against the doctrine of the Church of England, and will not produce the kind of settlement that they say they want. They need to go away and think again, and when it meets later this month that is what Synod needs to tell them to do.

A final point to note is that the words in Commitment 4,  ‘We will seek a commitment to avoid using the civil courts to settle our disputes’ is concerning because it potentially gives unchecked power to the authorities in the Church of England to act as they see fit without the potential for any external remedy should they act in an unjust or illegal fashion. It also goes against the principle set out in Article XXXVII that the Civil Magistrates do have legitimate authority in ecclesiastical matters.

---

[1] The House of Bishops, GS 2346 , ‘Living in Love, Faith and Reconciliation’ at gs-2346-llf-synod-paper-feb 2024.pdf .

[2] The Lambeth Commission on Communion, The Windsor Report (London: The Anglican CommunionOffice, 2004), pp.38-39.

[3] The Windsor Report, pp.39-40.

[4] Martin Davie,  ‘Mr Facing Both Ways,’ at: https://wordpress.com/view/mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com

[5] See the Church of England Evangelical Council, Visibly Different, at https://ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/visibly_different__an_introduction_for_the_next_steps_group.pdf.

Mr Facing Both Ways

In his book The Pilgrim’s Progress John Bunyan refers to a character called ‘Mr Facing Both Ways.’ As I reflected on the events of the past year and where they have left the Church of England it struck me that Bunyan’s name for this character is also an apt description of the current position of the Church of England.

 On the one hand, the Church of England officially continues to adhere to (a) the traditional Christian doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics, and (b) the traditional Christian doctrine that  visible holiness of life should be required of Christian ministers. On the other hand, since 17 December  last year it has contradicted (a) in terms of its liturgical practice. Furthermore, it seems certain that action by the House of Bishops will mean that in the coming year the Church of England will contradict traditional Christian doctrine further in area (a) and will also contradict it in area (b) as well.

In the remainder of this paper, I shall substantiate in detail the claims made in the previous paragraph and suggest how orthodox Evangelicals[1] in the Church of England should respond to this new situation.

I shall first of all set out the traditional Christian doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics as contained in the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer and Canon B.30, and how the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics is in line with this.  

I shall then explain how the attempt made in House of Bishop’s  Prayers of Love and Faith proposals to allow for the blessing of same-sex relationships while at the same time upholding the Church of England’s existing doctrine with regard to marriage and sexual ethics raises eight major problems.

I shall further note that the Prayers of Love and Faith proposals will almost certainly also lead to a change in the Church of England’s existing discipline with regard to ordination, that will also contradict the traditional Christian doctrine that the lives of Christian ministers should exhibit visible holiness in terms of their marital relationships and sexual behaviour.

I shall consider how the new Vatican document Fiducia Supplicans, released on 18 December last year, seems to be taking the Roman Catholic Church in the same facing two ways direction as the Church of England and how this forms part of bigger pattern of departure from Christian orthodoxy among the Church of England’s ecumenical partners.

 Finally, I shall suggest ways forward for orthodox Evangelicals in this new situation.

The traditional Christian doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics

In the history of the Christian Church there have been doctrinal differences about marriage and sexual ethics. For example, Christians have disagreed about whether celibacy is a higher calling than marriage and whether it is right to describe marriage as a sacrament. However, in spite of such disagreements, there have been four core beliefs regarding marriage and sexual ethics that have come to form part of the doctrine of all orthodox Christian churches.

First, although God’s intentions with regard to marriage and sexual conduct are reflected in the fact that human beings have been created in two sexes that are designed to reproduce by means of sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, the primary source of our knowledge about God’s intentions in this area is the teaching of Scripture, with four biblical passages being seen as especially significant in this regard. These are the creation narratives in Genesis 1-2, Jesus’ teaching about marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:1-12 and Paul’s teaching about marriage and singleness in 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 and Ephesians 5: 21-33.

Secondly, that the division of humanity into two complementary sexes was not something accidental or evil but was in fact something good established by God when he first created the human race (Genesis 1 26-31 ). By complementary what is meant is that differences between men and women were intended for their mutual good.

Thirdly, that God intends marriage to be a life-long, sexually exclusive, relationship between two people of the opposite sex (Genesis 2:18-25, Matthew 19:1-12).

Fourthly, that God created marriage to be the setting for the procreation of children, to provide a remedy against sexual sin, to meet the human need for love and companionship and to point to the relationship between God and his people that will find full expression in the world to come (Genesis 1:28, Genesis 2:18-25, Ephesians 5:32, Revelation  19:6-7).

Fifthly, because sexual activity has its proper setting with marriage, those who are not married should be sexually abstinent either for life, or until they become married (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7:1-40). In the words of C S Lewis: ‘There is no getting away from it; the Christian rule is ‘Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.’’[2]

The traditional Church of England doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics.

The traditional Church of England doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics is summarised in two key places, the first is the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer and the second is Canon B.30. 

• The marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer

The service for the ‘solemnization of matrimony’ in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is based on the marriage services in the English Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552, which in turn drew extensively on the marriage rites of the pre-Reformation English Church.

Solemnization means marking something with a formal ceremony and the form of service for the ‘solemnization of matrimony’ in the Book of Common Prayer is a formal Church rite to mark the entry of a man and a woman into matrimony (or marriage, for the terms holy matrimony, matrimony, marriage and holy wedlock are used as synonyms).

The rite begins by stating positively the status of marriage given that it is no longer to be regarded as a sacrament, declaring that marriage is:

‘An honourable estate instituted by God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church: which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and the first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of St. Paul to be honourable among all men.’

The words ‘in the time of man’s innocency’ are intended to counter any idea that marriage is a second-class way of life brought in by God simply as a way of harnessing people’s undisciplined sexual appetites after the fall. On the contrary, the service says, marriage is something that is ‘honourable’ and ‘holy.’

This is for four reasons given to us in Scripture.

First, as Genesis 1 and 2 tell us, marriage is an ordinance of God in creation and therefore shares in creation’s original goodness. Like everything else created by God it is ‘very good.’

Secondly, as Ephesians 5:32 tells us, marriage is a God given sign pointing us to the relationship between Christ and His people.

Thirdly, as John 2:1-12 tells us, Christ gave his own stamp of approval to marriage when he attended a marriage at Cana in Galilee and made it the occasion of his first miracle. Christ may not have instituted marriage as a sacrament, but he dignified it by his presence and action at Cana.

Fourthly, as Hebrews 13:4 (here attributed to Paul) says, marriage is therefore something that should be held in honour by everyone.

The service then goes on to warn that because marriage is honourable and holy it is therefore:

‘… not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.’

The service lists three causes for which marriage was ordained:

‘First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, it was ordained 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.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.’

These three causes are Archbishop Thomas Cranmer’s re-working of the traditional medieval list of the three ‘goods’ of marriage. This list goes back to Augustine’s reading of Scripture in his treatise On the Good of Marriage^[3] and in line with the commitment of the English Reformers to Scripture as God’s written word and therefore the supreme theological authority for the Church, Cranmer’s re-working of this traditional list of the causes for marriage is likewise based on biblical teaching.

The first of these causes links Gods command to his human creatures ‘be fruitful and multiply’ in Genesis 1:28 to the building up of the Christian community in accordance with the promise of numerous godly descendants made by God to Abraham in Genesis 12:2-3.

As the homily ‘Of the State of Matrimony’ in the Second Book of Homilies puts it, marriage was ordained:

”… that the Church of God and his kingdom, might by this kind of life, be conserved and enlarged, not only in that God giveth children, by his blessing, but also, in that they be brought up by the parents godly, in the knowledge of God’s word; that thus the knowledge of God, and true religion, might be delivered in succession, from one to another, that finally, many might enjoy that everlasting immortality.’^[4]

From an Anglican perspective this means that procreation is an integral part of marriage, and the normal expectation is that a married couple who are able to do so will have choose to have children. A married couple that chose not to have children when they were able to do so would need to have a good reason for their decision not to fulfil this aspect of the purpose of marriage. However, since the Lambeth Conference of 1930 the Church of England, like the Anglican tradition as a whole, has accepted that it may be a legitimate Christian choice to use artificial contraception where ‘there is…a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence.’^[5]

The second cause links the teaching of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 7:8-9 about marriage as a remedy for the temptation to sexual immorality with his teaching in 1 Corinthians 6 about the sexual purity required of the members of body of Christ. As the homily ‘Of the State of Matrimony’ puts it, marriage bridles ‘the corrupt inclinations of the flesh, within the limits of honesty; for God hath strictly forbidden all whoredom and uncleanness.’^[6] 

The phrase ‘remedy against sin’ used in this second cause is an English translation of the Latin phrase ‘remedium peccati’ which goes back to Augustine. Augustine saw marriage as a remedy against sin because its good of faithfulness (fides) turned the roaming disorders of excessive sexual appetite into a settled and exclusive attraction and because the link in marriage between sexual activity and the procreation of children (with the consequent responsibilities and constraints of parenthood) meant that ‘carnal or youthful incontinence, which is admittedly a defect, is applied to the honourable task of begetting children, and so intercourse within marriage engenders something good from the evil of lust.’^[7] Cranmer and the other English Reformers, on the other hand, had a different focus. For them the problem for which marriage was a remedy was sexual activity outside marriage (‘whoredom or uncleanness’) rather than excessive sexual desire within it. 

The English reformers adhered to the tradition of the Church from New Testament times onwards that all forms of sexual intercourse outside marriage (including what we now call same-sex sexual intimacy) were abominable sins forbidden by the seventh commandment. Thus, the homily ‘Against whoredom and uncleanness’ declares:

‘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. By the which word adultery, though 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 forth 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.‘^[8]

It is this conviction that underlies what is said about the second cause of marriage. Marriage, and marriage alone, provides the setting within which people  may engage in sexual activity in a godly way that does not breach the seventh commandment and by so doing ‘keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.’

The third cause links together the teaching of Genesis 2:18-25 about the origins of marriage and the teaching about the nature of the marriage among Christians by Paul in Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33 and by Peter in 1 Peter 3:1-7. To quote the homily again, it depicts marriage as ‘perpetually friendly fellowship’^[9] between a husband and wife.  

Consideration of the fact that marriage was ordained by God himself for these three causes reinforces the need for marriage not to be undertaken ‘unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly.’ They mean that marriage is not simply a matter of engaging in sexual activity ‘like brute beasts that have no understanding,’ but a serious Christian vocation that is just as spiritually demanding in its own way as the vocation to celibacy and is therefore to be undertaken ‘reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God.’

Further important details about the understanding of marriage in The Book of Common Prayer are provided by the part of the marriage service in which the marriage itself takes place.

This part of the service begins with a warning by the minister taking the service that if either party to the marriage knows of any impediment to it, they should confess it because ‘so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.’

After this a chance is given for any potential impediment to the marriage to be alleged and investigated and if no impediment is alleged then two sets of promises follow.

In the first set the man answers ‘I will’ to the question:

‘Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?’

The woman likewise answers ‘I will’ to the question:

‘Wilt thou have this man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?’

In the second set the man and woman declare in turn:

‘I N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

I N. take thee N. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.’

The man next places a ring on the woman’s left hand with the words: ‘With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

The minster then prays:

‘O eternal God, Creator and Preserver of all mankind, Giver of all spiritual grace, the Author of everlasting life: Send thy blessing upon these thy servants, this man and this woman, whom we bless in thy Name; that, as Isaac and Rebecca lived faithfully together, so these persons may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made, (whereof this ring given and received is a token and pledge,) and may ever remain in perfect love and peace together, and live according to thy laws; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.’

He then joins their right hands together and says:

‘Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.’

After that he tells the congregation:

‘Forasmuch as N. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth either to other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving of a ring, and by joining of hands; I pronounce that they be man and wife together, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’Forasmuch as N. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth either to other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving of a ring, and by joining of hands; I pronounce that they be man and wife together, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

Finally, he pronounces a further blessing on the newly married couple:

‘God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless, preserve, and keep you; the Lord mercifully with his favour look upon you, and so fill you with all spiritual benediction and grace, that ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting. Amen.’

After this the service concludes with the recitation of Psalms 128 or 67, prayers, a concluding blessing and either a sermon or a reading of the teaching on marriage from Ephesians 5, Colossians 3 and 1 Peter 3.

An examination of this part of the marriage service reveals seven key points concerning marriage.

1.The opening prayer by the minister holds together creation and grace. Cranmer and the other English Reformers did not see marriage as a sacrament, but they did not see it as a purely secular matter, but as a means of grace through which people might receive God’s blessing.

2. Although in the sixteenth century a church service was not regarded as a necessary part of marriage, the Book of Common Prayer is clear that a wedding is a religious ceremony which is undertaken before God and God’s people and blessed in God’s name.

3. In order for a marriage to be valid and lawful (under the laws of both Church and state) it cannot take place in any way that is not permitted by Scripture, ‘other than God’s word doth allow’. That is why the Book of Common Prayer contains a table of ‘kindred and affinity’ listing those relationships that are an impediment to marriage according to Leviticus 18:6-18 and 20:17-21.

4. A marriage is a covenant freely entered into by one man and one woman, enacted by a mutual exchange of promises and the giving and receiving of a ring. It is ‘vow and covenant betwixt them made’ that makes them man and wife. When the minister says ‘I pronounce that they be man and wife together’ this is the public announcement of an existing reality not the creation of a new one.

5.The character of the covenant that a husband and wife have entered into is a commitment to a life-long exclusive relationship of mutual love between one man and one woman.

6. The fact that the bride promises to obey her husband is an indication that the teaching of Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18 and 1 Peter 3:1-6, about wives submitting to their husbands is seen as still applicable to Christian marriage in subsequent times and not just in the first century.^[10] However, this does not justify a husband exercising arbitrary or tyrannical authority over his wife. Rather, to quote the homily ‘Of Matrimony’ once again, the husband ‘ought to be the leader and author of love, in cherishing and increasing concord’^[11] thus fulfilling the apostle’s exhortation ‘husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her’ (Ephesians 5:25).

7. The use of the words ‘those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder’ taken from Matthew 19:6/Mark 10:9 acts as a solemn warning about the sanctity and therefore permanence of marriage, making clear that human beings should not break apart through divorce those whom God has joined together in marriage.

A final point that is worth noting is that the rubric at the end of the marriage service states that ‘it is convenient that the new-married persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the first opportunity after their Marriage.’ This rubric once again underlines the specifically Christian character of the form of marriage envisaged in the marriage service of the Book of Common Prayer. The vision is of a newly married couple entering as a couple into the life of the Christian community and symbolizing this by receiving Holy Communion together at the first opportunity.

• Canon B 30

Canon B.30 of the Canons of the Church of England, ‘Of Holy Matrimony,’ was promulgated in 1969, Like the other Canons, it sets the legal parameters for the corporate life of the Church of England. In this connection it consciously and deliberately underlines the doctrine of marriage contained in the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer.

The Canon specifically affirms that the Church of England’s understanding of marriage is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer Marriage Service:

‘The teaching of our Lord affirmed by the Church of England is expressed and maintained in the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony contained in The Book of Common Prayer.’^[12]

The Canon also summarises the teaching on marriage of the Book of Common Prayer and deliberately echoes its language. It declares:

‘The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.’^[13]

‘Our Lord’s teaching’ referred to here, is the teaching of Jesus about marriage in Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12 (which in turn refers to the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2). The reference to marriage being ‘in its nature a union permanent and lifelong’ is an addition to the language of the Prayer Book and was intended to underscore the permanent nature of marriage at a time when this was felt to be under threat in British society. The words ‘in its nature’ indicate that permanence is an essential feature of marriage as a created ordinance and therefore something that applies to all marriages, in contrast to the Augustinian and medieval view that permanence is a feature only of sacramental, that is Christian, marriages. 

Building on this last point it is important to recognise that the term ‘Holy Matrimony’ in the title of the Canon, which is taken from the language of the Prayer Book,  does not refer to a specific Church of England type of marriage which is different from other marriages. There is not ‘holy matrimony’ as opposed to ‘unholy matrimony.’ In this Canon, as in the theology of the Church of England in general, there is only one type of marriage which is the form of marriage affirmed by Jesus, outlined in the Prayer Book marriage service, and summarised in the Canon.[14]

The words ‘for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections’ (which are taken from the marriage service in the 1928 Prayer Book) are the Canon’s gloss on the second cause of matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer. The point made by this gloss is that marriage allows natural human instincts and affections (including the natural human desire for a sexual relationship) to find expression in a way that is holy and that is accord with the way that God has created his human creatures to live. The Canon expresses this point in a positive way, but by implication it highlights the truth made explicitly in the Book of Common Prayer and the Homilies that that the expression of human desires and instincts outside of marriage can be unholy and not in accordance with God’s will (as in the case of sexual activity outside marriage).

What we learn from the Marriage Service and Canon B.30

What we learn about the Church of England’s doctrine concerning marriage and human sexuality from  the Marriage service and from Canon B.30 is that:

1.There is only on kind of marriage and one theology of marriage.

2. 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

3. It is a godly and 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, which is why Article XXXII declares that it open to all Christians (clergy included ‘to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.’

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

If we compare these six points with the summary of the traditional doctrine of the Christian Church as a whole given at the start of this paper, we find that they align exactly. The doctrine of the Church of England with regard to marriage and sexual ethics and the historic doctrine of the Church as a whole on these matters are one and the same.

Where we are today

Since 17 December 2023 the Church of England has departed from this agreed pattern of doctrine as a result of the House of Bishops commending the use of prayers of blessing for couples who are in same-sex relationships and those prayers being subsequently used.

On 15 November 2023  the Church of England’s General Synod narrowly passed a motion moved by the Bishop of London which runs as follows:

‘That this Synod, conscious that the Church is not of one mind on the issues raised by Living in Love and Faith, that we are in a period of uncertainty, and that many in the Church on all sides are being deeply hurt at this time, recognise the progress made by the House of Bishops towards implementing the motion on Living in Love and Faith passed by this Synod in February 2023, as reported in GS 2328, encourage the House to continue its work of implementation, and ask the House to consider whether some standalone services for same-sex couples could be made available for use, possibly on a trial basis, on the timescale envisaged by the motion passed by the Synod in February 2023.’[15]

The voting figures were:

Bishops: 23 for, 10 against, 4 abstained

Clergy: 100 for, 93 against, 1 abstained

Laity: 104 for, 100 against, 0 abstained

The encouragement for implementation contained in this motion gave the House of Bishops the green light to proceed with the commendation of the ‘Prayers, Acclamations and Promises’ for same -sex couples contained in Annex C of the House of Bishops’ paper ‘Living in Love and Faith – Setting out the progress made and the work still to do.’ (GS 2328) [16]

According to GS 2328, the texts in Annex C

‘…. are offered as resources in praying with and for a same-sex  couple who love one another and who wish to give thanks for and mark that love in faith before God. To celebrate in God’s presence the commitment two people have made to each other is an occasion for rejoicing. The texts are offered to express thanksgiving and hope, with prayer that those who are dedicating their life together to God may grow in faith, love and service as God’s blessing rests upon them.’ [17]

On 12 December the House of Bishops took advantage of the synodical green light by formally commending the material in Annex C, plus the prayers for Covenanted Friendships contained in Annex B, for use by the clergy at their own discretion under the terms of Canon B5 (‘Of the discretion of ministers in conduct of public prayer’) with the commendation taking effect on the following Sunday. ‘Pastoral Guidance’ on the use of the commended material was issued by the bishops at the same time. [18]

The first services using the commended material were duly held the following Sunday. [19]

What are we to make of the commended material?

Section 1 of the Pastoral Guidance, begins with the following two paragraphs:

‘The Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF hereafter) are a resource for God’s pilgrim people as they journey on the way of Christ toward the fulness of his kingdom. They are another means by which to give thanks for God’s gifts in creation and redemption, to turn from sin, and to seek God’s aid in becoming holy, in proclaiming the gospel, in loving our neighbours and pursuing justice.

The Church of England teaches that Holy Matrimony is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, blessed by God in creation and pointing to the love between Christ and the Church; a way of life which Christ makes holy. It is within marriage that sexual intimacy finds its proper place.’^[20]

The second  of these two paragraphs echoes the authorised teaching of the Church of England as given in  Canon B.30, the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer and the 1999 House of Bishops teaching document on marriage which builds on them both.  

In the first sentence of the paragraph the opening declaration that: ‘Holy Matrimony is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman’ reflects the statement in Canon B 30.1:‘marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part.’

The declaration in the second part of the sentence that marriage is a state of life:  ‘blessed by God in creation and pointing to the love between Christ and the Church; a way of life which Christ makes holy’ reflects the opening words of the marriage service:

‘Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee.’

Finally, the declaration in the second sentence that: ‘It is within marriage that sexual intimacy finds its proper place’ reflects the statement in the 1999 teaching document Marriage that: ‘Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively.’^[21] This statement reflects in turn the statement in the marriage service that marriage was ordained ‘for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication,’ which makes it clear that sexual intercourse outside marriage constitutes the sin of fornication. It is not just that marriage between a man and a woman is the best place for sexual intercourse, it is that it is the only place in which sexual intercourse can take place in a non-sinful manner.

The purpose of this second paragraph is to suggest that nothing has changed. The Church of England’s traditional teaching with regard to marriage and sexual ethics remains in place. However, this is where the House of Bishops attempt to be Mr Facing Both Ways becomes unstuck.

This is because if we take the Church of England material to which the paragraph refers as theologically authoritative, then the following eight problems arise with what is said in the first paragraph from the Pastoral Guidance, given that the Prayers of Love and Faith will be offered to those in same-sex civil marriages and in sexually active same-sex relationships.

First, it is impossible to give thanks for a same-sex marriage as one of ‘God’s gifts in creation’ for the very simple reason that same-sex marriages are not what God has created. Marriage was ‘instituted of God’ to be between two people of the opposite sex (Genesis 2:18-25). Same-sex marriage is a humanly created substitute for what God has instituted.

Secondly, it is impossible to give thanks for same-sex sexual relationships as one of ‘God’s gifts in creation’ for the same reason. As Paul makes clear in Romans 1:26-27, same-sex sexual relationships involve a rejection of what God has created (which is what Paul means when he says that they are ‘unnatural’).

Thirdly, God’s gift of redemption means what God has done in Christ to enable his human creatures to live according to his will (see Romans 6:1-14, 8:1-7).  It is impossible to sincerely give thanks for this while intending to go on living in ways that  are contrary to his will, as is the case with living in a same-sex marriage or engaging in same-sex sexual intercourse (which if marriage is properly between a man and a woman is necessarily a form of extra-marital sexual activity, or ‘fornication’).

Fourthly, in the case of both same-sex marriages and same-sex sexual relationships, turning from sin must mean ceasing to be involved in both these  ways of life for the reasons previously given. Not only do the Prayers of Love and Faith not encourage this, but they are also arguably an impediment to it, as the message they give out is that both these ways of life are ones that can be joyfully celebrated before God and for which his blessing can rightly be sought.

Fifthly, the Prayers of Love and Faith do not encourage those in same-sex marriages and same-sex sexual relationships to ‘seek God’s aid in becoming holy’ because what ‘becoming holy‘ (i.e. beginning to live in a way that is in accordance with God’s will) would mean would be ceasing to be involved in these relationships and, as before, the prayers do not encourage this and arguably act as an impediment to it happening. 

Sixthly, the Prayers of Love and Faith do not assist in ‘proclaiming the gospel’ because an integral part of the proclamation of the gospel is a call for people to repent of ways of life that are contrary to God’s will (‘Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled and kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’ – Mark 1:14-15). For the reasons previously noted what this means for those in same-sex marriages and same-sex sexual relationships is repentance with regard to being involved in them. The Prayers of Love and Faith are not only silent on the need for such repentance, but, as before, arguably an impediment to it occurring.

Seventhly, the Prayers of Love and Faith do not assist people to love their neighbours. This is because loving one’s neighbour means helping them to flourish in the way that God intends for them. In the case of those in same-sex marriages same-sex sexual relationships such flourishing means ceasing to be involved in them and starting to live instead in the ways intended by God, which means either a life of sexual faithfulness in an opposite sex marriage, or a life marked by sexual abstinence. Once again, there is nothing in the Prayers of Love and Faith which assists with this happening and they may well act as an impediment to it.

Eighthly, the Prayers of Love and Faith do not help people to ‘pursue justice.’ This is because as Augustine asks: ‘When a man does not serve God, what amount of justice are we to suppose to exist in his being?’^[22] To ‘do justly’ means ‘to walk humbly with your God’ (Micah 6:8), which in turn means living in accordance with God’s will, and the Prayers of Love and Faith will not help those in same-sex marriages or same-sex sexual relationships to do this for the reasons previously given.

The counter argument to what I have just said is that, as Section 1 of the Pastoral Guidance goes on to say, ‘committed faithful relationships that are not marriage’ may contain ‘qualities and goods that are worth affirming and celebrating’[23]and Prayers of Love and Faith are a way of  undertaking such affirmation and celebration. The problem with this argument is that it is hard to see how there can be a transition between liturgically ‘affirming and celebrating’ a relationship because of the ‘qualities and goods’ that it contains, and later on saying that that same relationship is sinful and therefore needs to be repented of and brought to an end. How is a member of the clergy supposed  to say to a couple: ‘You know I prayed for God to bless your relationship?  Well now I am telling you that that same relationship is sinful, and you need to give it up’?  Would not the reasonable response from the couple be: ‘If our relationship is sinful then why did you pray for it in the first place?’ The Pastoral Guidance gives no answer to this question, which is not surprising since it is unanswerable.

The fundamental problem is that the bishops want to have it both ways. One the one hand, for both personal and political reasons they want to affirm the pattern of life laid down by God and witnessed to in the traditional teaching of the Church of England. On the other hand, for both personal and political reasons they want to burn a pinch of incense to one of the great cultural idols of our time, the belief that it is necessary to affirm whatever form of consensual relationship seems right to particular individuals. However, as the Bible consistently declares,  you cannot serve both God and an idol. You can do one or the other, but not both.

Where are we likely to go next?

In the light of the November General Synod vote it seems almost certain that the House of Bishops will seek to do two further things.[24] First it will seek to make standalone services for same-sex couples (as contained in Annex D of GS 2328) available for use on a trial basis. Secondly, it also seems almost certain that it will seek to rescind the Church of England’s current discipline that Church of England ministers should not be in sexually active same-sex relations or in same-sex marriages.

Since GS 2328 was published, there have been leaked reports that a majority of the College and House of Bishops favour changing the Church of England’s current discipline with regard to ordination and ministerial appointments so that being in a same-sex marriage and or a same-sex sexual relationships would no longer be a bar to the exercise of ordained ministry. In addition, a statement signed by forty-four bishops has been issued which re-affirms the bishops’ commitment to the motion passed by General Synod in February, but which also states:

‘We look forward to Guidance being issued without delay that includes the removal of all restrictions on clergy entering same-sex civil marriages, and on bishops ordaining and licensing such clergy, as well as granting permissions to officiate.’ [25]

The problem with allowing standalone services is the same as with the commended prayers, namely that the material that the services contain will be incompatible with the Church of England’s doctrine on marriage and sexual ethics, which the bishops have said they want to uphold. This is particularly the case because the services will be very similar to the Church of England’s existing services for the blessing of opposite sex couples after a Civil Marriage and will inevitably be seen by the couples involved and by the wider Church and world as the Church of England blessing their marriage (even though according to the Church of England there is actually no marriage to bless).

An additional problem is that if these services come into use on a trial basis it will then be very difficult for them to be subsequently withdrawn even if a vote in Synod fails to achieve the necessary 2/3 majority.  If churches have used them, and are using them, there will be tremendous pressure for them to be allowed to continue to do so. 

The problem with changing the Church of England’s discipline with regard to ordination is that the Church of England’s current discipline in this matter is not arbitrary, but is based on the conjunction of two parts of Church of England doctrine.

The first part is the requirement outlined in the 1662 Ordinal that those who are ordained should be persons  of ‘godly conversation,’ conversation here meaning way of life. In other words, while all those who are ordained will obviously be sinners, they should nevertheless be people whose way of life is such that it does not mark a deliberate rejection of the requirements for holy living set out in Scripture and upheld by the Church of England.

Canon C.4.2 states similarly that:

‘Every bishop shall take care that he admit no person into holy orders but such as he knows either by himself, or by sufficient testimony….to be of virtuous conversation and good repute and such as to be a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ.’

The second part is the doctrine of the Church of England previously noted that says that being in a same-sex marriage, and/or in a same-sex sexual relationship is not a form of ‘virtuous conversation,’ or ‘a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ,’ but is instead a very serious form of sin. 

What neither the forty-four bishops, not anyone else advocating a change in the Church’s current discipline in order to allow the ordination or ministerial appointment of those in same-sex marriages and/or same-sex relationships have shown, is how such a change would not mark a departure from these two parts of existing Church of England doctrine. Such a change would either be a departure from the Church’s doctrine regarding the requirements for ordination, or it would be departure from the Church’s doctrine with regard to what constitutes ‘virtuous conversation’ in relation to marriage and sexual ethics.

It is important to note that nothing in the Church of England’s doctrine prevents the ordination of men and women who experience same-sex attraction. Whether or not someone is sexually attracted to members of their own sex is irrelevant to their suitability for ordination. What matters is their behaviour, whether their way of life is marked by ‘godly conversation.’ 

Godly conversation matters because the awesome responsibility of a Christian minister is to declare in word and deed the good news of Jesus Christ and what it means to live rightly in response to it, so that people will be moved to live in a way that means they will inherit eternal life. Ministers cannot do this effectively if their behaviour contradicts the message they are called to declare, and if they do so their conduct will in fact becoming death dealing rather than life giving.

This is a point which has been accepted since the earliest days of the Church. Thus, Augustine, commenting on Ezekiel 34:3-5,  declares that ungodly ministers are responsible for killing God’s sheep:

‘How do they kill them?’ you say. By leading bad lives, by setting a bad example. Was it for nothing that a servant of God was told, one prominent among the members of the supreme shepherd, Offering yourself in all company as an example of good works (Tit 2:7); and, Be a model to the faithful (1 Tm 4:12)? You see, even a strong sheep often enough, when he notices his pastor leading a bad life, if his eyes wander from the rules of the Lord and are attracted by human considerations, well he begins to say to himself, ‘If my pastor lives like that, who am I not to behave as he does?’ He has killed a strong sheep. So if he has killed a strong sheep, what must he be doing for the others, seeing that by his bad life he has slaughtered what he hadn’t fattened himself, but had found fat and sturdy?

I’m telling your graces, and I say it again, even if some sheep go on living, even if some sheep are strong in the word of the Lord, and hold fast to what they have heard from their Lord, Do what they say, but do not do what they do (Mt 23:3); yet the pastor who lives a bad life openly in the sight of the people is killing as far as he can any he is observed by. So he shouldn’t kid himself that after all that one hasn’t died. He’s alive, yes, and all the same he is a murderer. It’s like when a lecherous man looks at a woman to lust after her; yes, she remains chaste, and he all the same has committed adultery. The Lord’s verdict on the subject is true and plain: Whoever sees a woman to lust after her has already committed. adultery with her in his heart (Mt 5:28). He hasn’t managed to reach her bed, and he is already tumbling her in his own inner bed of the imagination.

In the same way, everyone who leads a bad life for all those to see whom he has been put in charge of, as far as he is concerned is killing even the strong ones. Any who imitate him die; whoever doesn’t imitate him lives. Yet as far as concerns him, he has killed them both. And what is fat, it says, you kill, and my sheep you do not feed (Ez 34:3).’ [26]

What Augustinew wriites here applies if an ordained minister is living in a same-sex marriage and/or is in a same-sex sexual relationship. Those observing him or her will be led to believe that same-sex marriages and or same sex-sexual relationships are not really that bad after all and will thus potentially be led down the path to eternal death.

At heart this is a matter of love. The Church is called to show love. In the first instance this demands that we are welcoming to all regardless of whether people share our views (on all kinds of issues) and regardless of their lifestyle.At the same time, this involves not simply affirming people as they are, but, when necessary, explaining why their lives need to change and how God’s power makes this change possible. This was the kind of love that Jesus modelled in his earthly ministry, and it is the kind of love that the Church as his body must show too.

Part of what it means to show this kind of love involves telling people that God has instituted marriage as a permanent and exclusive relationship between two people of the opposite sex and has laid down that sexual intercourse must only take place in this context. This message will not carry conviction unless it is modelled in the lives of the people within the Church, and particularly by its ordained ministers, and so the call to love necessarily involves the maintenance of the Church’s existing discipline with regard to ordination.

Fiducia Supplicans

As noted above, on the day after churches in the Church of England first began to use the  commended prayers for the blessing of same-sex couples the Roman Catholic Church’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Vatican department responsible for Roman Catholic Doctrine) issued a declaration entitled ‘Fiducia Supplicans – On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings.’[27] The introduction to the declaration explains that although the author its author was Cardinal Victor Fernandez, it has been approved by Pope Francis: ‘the text of the Declaration was submitted to the Holy Father for his review, and he approved it with his signature.’

Paragraphs 4 and 5 make it clear that the traditional Catholic view of marriage and sexual ethics has not changed  and that any form of blessing that introduces confusion on the matter is impermissible:

‘…. rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the ‘exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children’  and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.’

This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. [28]

However, paragraphs 30-31 then go on to say that informal blessings may be offered to couples who are in relationships outside marriage, including same-sex relationships:

‘While ‘it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially establish procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters,’  pastoral prudence and wisdom—avoiding all serious forms of scandal and confusion among the faithful—may suggest that the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth.

Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a  blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.’[29]

As Cardinal Gerhard Muller, who was head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith from 2012-2017, has pointed out in his critique of Fiducia Supplicans, the argument that has just been outlined, that Catholic clergy can legitimately bless couples whose relationships are contrary to Catholic teaching, is internally inconsistent. Rejecting the argument in Fiducia Supplicans that a distinction can be made between a liturgical blessing and an informal non-liturgical blessing, he writes as follows:

‘Is it even possible to give a non-liturgical blessing, a blessing, that is, which does not officially represent the teaching of Christ and of the Church? The key to answering this question is not whether the rites are officially approved or rather spontaneously improvised. The question is whether the one giving the blessing is a priest, a representative of Christ and the Church. FS affirms that there is no problem for the priest to join in the prayer of those who find themselves in a situation contrary to the Gospel (FS 30), but in this blessing the priest does not simply join in their prayer, but rather invokes the descent of God’s gifts upon the relationship itself. Insofar as the priest acts as a priest, he acts in the name of Christ and the Church. Now to claim that one can separate the meaning of this blessing from the teaching of Christ is to postulate a dualism between what the Church does and what the Church says. But as the Second Vatican Council teaches, revelation is given to us by deeds and words, which are inseparable (Dei Verbum 2), and the Church’s proclamation cannot separate deeds from words. It is precisely the simple people, whom the document wishes to favour by promoting popular piety, who are most susceptible to being deceived by a symbolic deed that contradicts doctrine, since they intuitively grasp the doctrinal content of the deed.

In light of this, can a faithful Catholic accept the teaching of FS? Given the unity of deeds and words in the Christian faith, one can only accept that it is good to bless these unions, even in a pastoral way, if one believes that such unions are not objectively contrary to the law of God. It follows that as long as Pope Francis continues to affirm that homosexual unions are always contrary to God’s law, he is implicitly affirming that such blessings cannot be given. The teaching of FS is therefore self-contradictory and thus requires further clarification. The Church cannot celebrate one thing and teach another because, as St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, Christ was the Teacher “who spoke and it was done” (Ephesians 15:1), and one cannot separate his flesh from his word.’ [30]

The point that Cardinal Muller is making is that. just like the bishops of the Church of England, the Pope and Cardinal Fernandez are trying to face in two directions at once by seeking both to affirm traditional Catholic teaching, and then suggesting that couples whose relationship contradicts this teaching can be blessed in God’s name by Roman Catholic clergy.

Evangelicals in the Church of England may ask what Fiducia Supplicans has to do with those in the Church of England. The answer to this question is twofold.

First, it may very well be the case that argument put forward in Fiducia Supplicans has been influenced by the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury that are also reflected in Prayers of Love and Faith. As Matthew Olver notes in his review of Fiducia Supplicans:

‘The desire to thread the needle so that the traditional doctrine of marriage is left intact but coupled with a more radical pastoral response is a shared desire of both Pope Francis and the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. It is well known that they have become close friends …. In fact, multiple sources have suggested that they discussed this very solution on their flight home from their joint pilgrimage for peace to South Sudan in February 2023… Apparently, the Pope thought the approach in the Church of England — keep the traditional doctrine of marriage intact but make pastoral provision for same-sex couples — was a good idea.

If that is the case, this may be one of the most unexpected forms of Anglican-Roman Catholic ecumenism: the Church of England’s squaring-the-circle solution to a hugely vexing problem serving as the basis for the response to the same situation in the two-billion-plus member Catholic Church.’ [31]

Secondly, as Carl Trueman has argued, the size of the Roman Catholic Church, means that if it shifts in a liberal direction this will inevitably create difficulties not only for conservative Roman Catholics, who will be the most immediate casualties but for conservative Protestants (including Anglican Evangelicals) as well.

‘Most immediately, Fiducia Supplicans will affect the pope’s own clergy, who will now come under huge pressure to bless same-sex couples even if their own consciences are troubled or compromised by doing so. Many will no doubt feel some sympathy for Luther at the Diet of Worms, when he stated clearly that it was not safe for a Christian to speak or act against his conscience.

But Catholic clergy will not be the only ones touched by this dilemma. When the leadership is ambiguous on such an important matter, it weakens the position of the laity. What of the public school teacher under pressure to accept the kaleidoscopic identities of the sexual revolution? What about the employee of the software company pressured to do the same? The case of Franz Jägerstätter, so memorably retold in the movie A Hidden Life, is a good, albeit extreme, example of the courage needed by an ordinary Christian when abandoned by a craven, corrupt, and cowardly church leadership. That is the position in which the pope’s latest antics have placed ordinary people—people for whom taking a stand on the truth could cost them far more than it would ever cost the pope. The public school teacher could lose everything. The pope risks only the goodwill of the New York Times editorial column. And if he is not willing to risk that, why should anybody else bother to make a real sacrifice?

This will also affect Protestants. Whether we like it or not, the officer class of our culture cares little for debates about transubstantiation and papal authority. It makes no real distinction between Catholics and Protestants. In its eyes we are all Christians and thus the shenanigans of the pope will put pressure on us all. The argument will be that, if Rome can change, why can we all not change? The possibility of sheltering under that broad cultural umbrella that Rome has provided will be withdrawn on this issue and we will feel the pain of that.’ [32]

It is also worth noting that Fiducia Supplicans is indicative of the fact that most of the Church of England’s ecumenical partners have moved away from traditional Christian teaching on marriage and sexual ethics to a greater or lesser extent.

For example, the Standing Orders of the Methodist Church of Great Britain, with whom the Church of England is in a covenant relationship, now contain a double definition of marriage as follows:

‘The Methodist Church believes that marriage is given by God to be a particular channel of God’s grace, and that it is in accord with God’s purposes when a marriage is a life-long union in body, mind and spirit of two people who freely enter it. Within the Methodist Church this is understood in two ways: that marriage can only be between a man and a woman; that marriage can be between any two people. The Methodist Church affirms both understandings and makes provision in its Standing Orders for them.’ [33]

In accordance with this statement the Methodist Church also allows same-sex marriages to take place in Methodist churches,

For another example, the Lutheran churches in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, with whom the Church of England has ecumenical relationships through the Porvoo agreement, now allow same-sex marriages in their churches. Similarly all the churches belonging to the EKD in Germany, with whom the Church of England has ecumenical relationships through he Meissen agreement permit the blessing od same-sex marriages.

What should we do now?

If the situation that orthodox Evangelicals in the Church of England is as I have described it, the question that arises is what action we should take in the light of this fact.

The first thing  we need to do is pray that we will stand firm ourselves and that the orthodox position will eventually prevail in our church, in other churches and in wider society.  

The words of Jesus are clear. God is willing and able to answer our prayers:

‘Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened’ (Matthew 7:7-8).

What follows from this is that if we don’t pray expectantly along the lines I have just suggested, either we don’t want these things to happen or (despite Jesus’ words) we don’t believe that God is able to bring them about. As orthodox Christians we must reject both these false ideas and act accordingly.

Secondly, we must be faithful to traditional Christian teaching in our own sexual behaviour. This is not only because this is right in itself, but also because nothing will undermine the credibility of the orthodox case faster than examples of orthodox Christians who say one thing and do another. We cannot criticise others for being Mr Facing Both Ways if we are being Mr Facing Both Ways ourselves.

Thirdly, we must be clear about our goal, our strategy and our tactics.

 Our goal needs to be the re-conversion of Western churches and Western society to the traditional Christian view of marriage and sexual ethics.

As a strategy to achieve this goal we need to create an orthodox province within the Church of England both to ensure that orthodoxy continues to flourish within the Church of England and to act as a base for undertaking the process of reconversion.

As tactics to achieve the creation of this province we need to inform, persuade, unite, protest and propose.

• We must do all that we can to inform ourselves and our churches about the nature of orthodox Christian teaching on marriage and sexual-ethics and why this teaching should be upheld. There are a wide range of excellent resources now available to help with this and we must make full use of them.

It is particularly important to be clear that this is not a matter that has to do with straight people v gay people. This is because a neat binary division between straight and gay people does not do justice to the complex and fluid nature of human sexual attraction, and because orthodox Christian teaching also holds that there are in fact only two types of people, men and women, two godly ways of life which are potentially open to all men and women , singleness and marriage, and two corresponding forms of sexual behaviour which apply to all people, sexual abstinence and sexual fidelity within male-female marriage, which apply to all people regardless of the sexual attraction they experience.

It is also vitally important that we inform ourselves and others about the need for, and the proper shape of, pastoral care and support for people who are same-sex attracted, making use of the expertise of Living Out and the True Freedom Trust in  relation to this.

• We must do all we can to persuade our churches to take a firm stand for orthodoxy.Although the pastoral guidance released by the bishops in December makes it clear that it is ultimately the  incumbent who has to decide whether or not to allow same-sex blessings to take place, orthodoxy will be in a very fragile place if it is solely Evangelical incumbents who support the orthodox position. In order to maintain the orthodox position for the future PCCs and whole congregations need to brough on board and a whole church culture committed to maintaining orthodoxy needs to be created.
• We must unite. To quote the old Trades Union motto, ‘unity is strength.’ Over the past few years we have seen increasing unity within the CEEC on marriage and sexual ethics and in the last year this unity has grown with the formation of the wider Alliance group. Maintaining and deepening this unity is vital, because the more united we are the more effective we will be in both resisting a further erosion of orthodoxy in the Church of England and promoting its greater acceptance. The more united we are the more our voice will be heard.
• We must protest. Like the first Protestants at the time of the Reformation, we must protest in favour of biblical teaching and as a consequence protest against forms of teaching a practice which go against it. Such protest will need to include the sorts of visible differentiation outlined in the papers from John Dunnett (‘What ‘impaired fellowship’ looks like at a local parish church level’) and myself (‘Why alternative episcopal oversight is needed in the light of the Synod vote and the forms such oversight might take’) which have been circulated for the residential.
• Finally, we must propose. We need to be clear and consistent in proposing the way forward we want to see, namely, alternative episcopal oversight in the short term and a provincial settlement in the longer term, and in explaining why what we want is necessary, achievable and in line with traditional Anglican ecclesiology.

---

[1] By ‘orthodox Evangelicals’ I mean those who hold to the traditional Christian doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics.

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

[3] Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, in The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol.III (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark/ Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 399-413.

[4]   ‘An Homily of the State of Matrimony’ in The Homilies (Bishopstone: The Brynmill Press/Preservation Press, 2006), p.363. The First and Second Books of Homilies were collections of authorised sermons produced by the Church of England during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth I to give teaching on key issues of Christian faith and behaviour. They provide an authorised commentary on the teaching given in the Articles and the Prayer Book.

[5]           Lambeth Conference 1930, Resolution 15, in R Coleman (ed), Resolutions of the Lambeth Conferences, 1867-1988 (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1992), p. 72. 

[6]   ‘An Homily on the State of Matrimony,’ p.363.

[7]   Augustine, On the Good of Marriage 3, in Patrick Walsh (ed), Augustine: De bono coniugali, De sancta virginitate (Oxford: OUP, 2001), p.7.

[8]   ‘A sermon against whoredom and uncleanness’ in The Homilies, pp. 88-89.

[9]   ‘An Homily on the State of Matrimony,’ p.363.

[10]    This point is also made clear in the exhortation to the newly married couple provided for use at the end of a service where there is no sermon. This exhortation instructs the wife to obey her husband on the basis of the teaching of  Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Peter 

[11]  ‘An Homily on the State of Matrimony,’ p.365.

[12] Canon B30.2

[13] Canon B30.1

[14] In the material submitted to the House of Bishops in February 2023 it was argued that ‘Holy Matrimony’ and ‘Marriage’ were two distinct things and that therefore same-sex civil marriages could be blessed withoutcontradicting the Church of England’s doctrine concerning Holy Matrimony. This argument was rightly dropped in the material brought forward by the bishops in November.

[15] The Church of England, ‘Synod backs trial of special services asking for God’s blessing for same-sex couples’ at https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/synod-backs-trial-special-services-asking-gods-blessing-same-sex-couples

[16] The House of Bishops ‘Living in Love and Faith – Setting out the progress made and the work still to do.’(GS 2328) at https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/gs-2328-llf-nov-2023.pdf.

[17] GS 2328, Annex C, p.1.

[18] The Church of England, ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ at https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/prayers-love-and-faith.

[19] Charlotte Lytton, ‘Today is the day the Church of England comes out of the closet,’ Daily Telegraph, 17 December, 2023 at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/17/church-of-england-same-sex-marriage- blessings-felixstowe/.

[20] The House of Bishops, Living in Love and Faith Pastoral Guidance, 2023, p. 1 at: https://www.churchof england.org/sites/default/files/2-23-12/living-in-love-and-faith-pastoral-guidance.pdf.

[21] The House of Bishops, Marriage (London: CHP, 1999), p. 8

[22] Augustine, The City of God , Bl XIX:21 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), p. 882.

[23] House of Bishops, Pastoral Guidance, p.1.

[24] An article by Colin Coward suggests the archbishops may have decided to postpone taking further action while seeking to achieve a settlement with conservatives in the Church of England (see Anglican Ink  ‘Welby takes a  u-turn on LLF reports Colin Coward’ at https://anglican.ink/2024/01/26/welby-takes-a-u-turn -on-llf-reports-colin-coward/). However, the use of the word ‘postpone’ as in Coward’s article indicates thatthe House of Bishops will still seek to take further action at some point in the future.

[25] The statement can be found on the Thinking Anglicans website at https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/44-bishops-call-for-clergy-to-be-allowed-same-sex-civil-marriages/#more-84285.

[26] Augustine, Sermon 46:9 in  Sermons II (20-50) on the Old Testament (New York: New City Press 1999), p.268.

[27] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fiducia Supplicans – On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings at: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia- supplicans_en.html

[28] Fiducia Supplicans, paras 4-5.

[29] Fiducia Supplicans, paras 30-31

[30] Gerhard Muller, ‘The Only Blessing of Mother Church is the Truth That Will Set Us Free. Note on the Declaration Fiducia Supplicans’  at https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/muller-fiducia-supplicans-is-self.

[31] Matthew Olver, ‘Pope Francis’ Fiducia Supplicans: Over the Rubicon, Past the Tiber, and into a Sea of Change,’ at https://covenant.livingchurch.org/2023/12/22/popes-franciss-fiducia-supplicans-over-the-rubicon- past-the-tiber-and-into-a-sea-of-change.’

[32] Carl Trueman, ‘The Pope, Same-Sex Blessings, and Protestants,’ at: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/the-pope-same-sex-blessings-and-protestants

[33] This new version of Standing Orders can be found if you follow the ‘same-sex marriages link in the article ‘Conference confirms resolutions on marriage and relationships’ at: https://www.methodist.org.uk/about-us/news/latest-news/all-news/conference-confirms-resolutions-on-marriage-and-relationships/

Here we go again….

As I noted in my previous post, ‘Why GS 2328 is not the right way forward,’ the Prayers of Love and Faith proposals being brought forward by the House of Bishops have to be assessed in accordance with clause (g) of the motion passed by General Synod in February, since it was this motion that gave the bishops authorisation to continue with the Prayers of Love and Faith process.

Clause (g) states that the members of Synod:

‘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.’[1]

The challenge presented to the bishops by this clause is to produce proposals that are in conformity with the Church of England’s existing doctrine. As the bishops concede in paper GS 2328, ‘Living in Love and Faith setting out the progress made and work still to do,’[2] which they have produced for the November meeting of Synod, this challenge is more complex than simply not changing the requirement that marriage has to be between two people of the opposite sex. It also involves not changing the Church’s teaching that the only legitimate place for sexual activity is within marriage. Furthermore, as I also noted in my previous post, Church of England doctrine holds that entering into a form of marriage that goes against the law of God and engaging in sexual activity outside marriage are very serious forms of sin which need to be met with a call to repentance, confession, absolution and amendment of life, and any proposals from the bishops need to reflect this fact as well.

What I argued in my previous post was that the proposals for ‘pastoral provision’ put forward by the bishops in annexes C and D of GS 2328  fail to respond adequately to this challenge which the bishops have been set. This is because although the ‘forms of service’ contained in these annexes are designed for use with couples who are in a state of sin, since they are in same-sex marriages and/or in same-sex sexual relationships, they do not contain a call to repentance, or any prayers of confession, or absolution, or any prayers that ask for God’s help in amendment of life. The absence of such material means they are indicative of a departure from the Church’s existing doctrine and are therefore contrary to both clause (g) and also to the requirements of Canon Law.

Since GS 2328 was published, there have also been leaked reports that a majority of the College and House of Bishops favour changing the Church of England’s current discipline with regard to ordination and ministerial appointments so that being in a same-sex marriage and or a same-sex sexual relationships would no longer be a bar to the exercise of ordained ministry. In addition, a statement signed by 44 bishops has been issued which re-affirms the bishops’ commitment to the motion passed by General Synod in February, but which also states:

‘We look forward to Guidance being issued without delay that includes the removal of all restrictions on clergy entering same-sex civil marriages, and on bishops ordaining and licensing such clergy, as well as granting permissions to officiate.’ [3]

When I read this statement I thought ‘here we go again.’ This because the problem which the bishops fail to note is that, just like the proposed forms of service  in GS 2328, any such guidance produced as part of the Prayers of Love and Faith process would fail the challenge set to the bishops by clause (g). This is because the Church of England’s current discipline in this matter is not arbitrary, but is based on the conjunction of two parts of Church of England doctrine.

The first part is the requirement outlined in the 1662 Ordinal that those who are ordained should be persons  of ‘godly conversation,’ conversation here meaning way of life. In other words, while all those who are ordained will obviously be sinners, they should nevertheless be people whose way of life is such that it does not mark a deliberate rejection of the requirements for holy living set out in Scripture and upheld by the Church of England.

Canon C.4.1 states similarly that:

‘Every bishop shall take care that he admit no person into holy orders but such as he knows either by himself, or by sufficient testimony….to be of virtuous conversation and good repute and such as to be a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ.’

The second part is the doctrine of the Church of England previously noted that says that being in a same-sex marriage, and/or in a same-sex sexual relationship is not a form of ‘virtuous conversation,’ or ‘a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ,’ but is instead a very serious form of sin. 

What neither the 44 bishops, not anyone else advocating a change in the Church’s current discipline in order to allow the ordination or ministerial appointment of those in same-sex marriages and/or same-sex relationships have shown, is how such a change would not mark a departure from these two parts of existing Church of England doctrine. Such a change would either be a departure from the Church’s doctrine regarding the requirements for ordination, or it would be departure from the Church’s doctrine with regard to what constitutes ‘virtuous conversation’ in relation to marriage and sexual ethics.

It is important to note that  nothing in the Church of England’s doctrine prevents the ordination of men and women who experience same-sex attraction. Whether or not someone is sexually attracted to members of their own sex is irrelevant to their suitability for ordination. What matters is their behaviour, whether their way of life is marked by ‘godly conversation.’  

Why this matters is because the fundamental calling of an ordained minister is to declare in word and deed the good news of Jesus Christ and what it means to live rightly in response to it. They cannot do this effectively if their behaviour contradicts the message they are called to declare, and this is the case if an ordained minister is living in a same-sex marriage and/or is in a same-sex sexual relationship.

At heart this is a matter of love. The Church is called to show love, and this involves not simply affirming people as they are, but, when necessary, explaining why their lives need to change and how God’s power makes this change possible. This was the kind of love that Jesus modelled in his earthly ministry and it is the kind of love that the Church as his body must show too. Part of what it means to show this kind of love involves telling people that God has instituted marriage as a permanent and exclusive relationship between two people of the opposite sex and has laid down that sexual intercourse must only take place in this context. This message will not carry conviction unless it is modelled in the lives of the people within the Church, and particularly by its ordained ministers, and so the call to love necessarily involves the maintenance of the Church’s existing discipline with regard to ordination.

In conclusion, what the new statement from the 44 bishops reinforces is the fact that the liberal majority among the bishops is taking the Church down a dead end. It is proposing something which is intrinsically impossible, namely changing the Church’s practice without changing its doctrine, and changing the doctrine would itself be wrong. When General Synod meets later this month it needs to recognise this truth by refusing to endorse what the House of Bishops has produced in GS 2328 and calling on the House of Bishops to go away and find a better way forward.

As I suggested in my previous post, the optimal 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 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  its existing doctrine would be maintained and where proper pastoral care for same-sex attracted people would be offered.

---

[1] ‘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.

[2] 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.

[3] The statement can be found on the Thinking Anglicans website at https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/44- bishops-call-for-clergy-to-be-allowed-same-sex-civil-marriages/#more-84285

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