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 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/