Updates from the Church of England General Synod Monday 8th July 2024

Anglican Futures has updated yesterday’s post on the Living in Love and Faith debate at the Church of England’s General Synod on July 8th, 2024.

It’s a good summary of a tragic move by the Church of England, with excerpts from some of the key speeches.

Image: Ian Paul addresses the General Synod (link to video):

“If you are thinking of voting for this proposal, please do it with your eyes wide open. Knowing it will destroy trust. Knowing it will divide the Church. Knowing it will lead to greater decline. Personally, I don’t feel that any of these things are a demonstration of the love of God. Vote for this only if you think that distrust, disunity and decline are the price worth paying.”

Church Society Responds to The Bishop of Oxford

Rev. Dr. Lee Gatiss, Director of Church Society.

03 July 2024.

This important Response to the Bishop of Oxford has been released Church Society.

It’s worth quoting in full:

In June, the bishops of the Church of England told us what their way “forward” is on the vexed issues of same-sex marriage for clergy and the introduction of blessing services for people already in such relationships. Church Society responded to these proposals.

On 26th June, eleven bishops called on their colleagues to re-think their proposals, to do some actual doctrinal work, and bring back proposals that could be properly considered under the governance of the necessary canons.

That same day, The Alliance (which describes itself as “a broad coalition of leaders of networks across different traditions supported by more than 2,000 clergy within the Church of England”) released a public letter supporting those bishops “in their endeavours to remain faithful to the orthodox teaching of the Church of England.” They made it clear that “What is proposed is clearly indicative of ‘a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England in an essential matter,’” and expressed disappointment that the House of Bishops had reneged on their previous decision to follow the correct canonical processes. Further, they said that:

“If the further departure from the Church’s doctrine suggested by the Synod papers does go ahead, we will have no choice but rapidly to establish what would in effect be a new de facto “parallel Province” within the Church of England and to seek pastoral oversight from bishops who remain faithful to orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality…. We are not leaving the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. We wish to stay loyal to the one holy catholic and apostolic Church throughout the world rather than be part of a schismatic move which departs from the teaching received and upheld not only by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion (representing around 75% of the Anglican Communion’s 80 million members), the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches but also the vast majority of other churches around the world.”

“We urge you,” they said, “even at this late stage, to honour your oaths as archbishops and bishops in England and to follow the lawful constitutional path to preserve the unity of the Church throughout the Anglican Communion.” The letter was signed by leaders from the Church Commissioners, General Synod, Archdeacons, New Wine, the HTB Network, the Evangelical Group on General Synod, the CEEC, ReNew, church planting networks, the Orthodox Female Clergy Group, Living Out, and Church Society. See their whole letter.

The Alliance also contains several bishops, and some Anglo-Catholic leaders, who wrote their own statement in support.

Numbers

There has been a certain level of pushback to the Alliance letter, not least from the Bishop of Oxford who angrily rejects what they say and calls on everyone to “unite behind our compromise”. In a rather undignified and aggressive response, he questions whether there really is support from 2000+ clergy for the Alliance stance, asking in a somewhat belittling way for the evidence of this. The Alliance, as many will know, has a website(https://alliancecofe.org/) and the first thing one is confronted with there is a “Join with us” button. That is where they have been able to gather signatures and church details for such a large group of clergy. I think the bishops who dismissively question the support the Alliance has would be taken aback by the breadth of this and the number of parishioners (including a very sizeable proportion of the under 18s in the entire Church of England) who are represented here. It is not for me to release such figures, but it is also not clear to me why the bishop feels the need to suggest that we are lying about the numbers who have expressed concern and joined with us.

The Bishop also disparagingly questions whether the Anglo-Catholic members of the Alliance (with whom I had good conversations at the last meeting of The Alliance, and with whom I am in regular touch) are really behind it. They themselves have released a statement about this for the avoidance of any doubt there.

The Bishop condescendingly suggests that those concerned about the Bishops’ proposals are really a very small number. That is not so. He says there is “literally no risk whatsoever that churches and ministers who support the Church’s current teaching would have to act against their conscience or depart from that doctrine.” But this is naive at best, or disingenuous, and neglects to tell us how we might obey Scripture’s very clear injunction to avoid those who introduce false teaching into the church. We all know that today’s compromise is tomorrow’s baseline for further changes. The Bishop even tells us what his end goal is: full acceptance of gay marriages in church.

Not a change of doctrine

The Bishop claims that “This is not a watershed moment”, and that introducing blessings for same-sex marriages and allowing clergy to marry their same-sex partners, is not (as the Canons state) a departure from or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter. It takes a huge amount of chutzpah to assert such a thing and expect to be taken seriously. The fact that people in authority are doing so, is one of the main reasons why there is a huge dearth of trust in our church at the moment. Institutional gaslighting is an abuse of power.

The Bishop of Oxford lecturing a group of concerned individuals for meeting in a closed room (it wasn’t actually, the door was never locked) is a bit rich given that the House of Bishops (which is a legislative body of the General Synod) routinely votes explicitly to close off all its discussions and doesn’t release any of the legal advice on which its revolutionary diktats to the rest of us are supposedly based.

Using power to arbitrarily push novel practices against long-established and repeated laws, is a form of tyranny — that our bishops would no doubt complain about if it were the Government or a foreign president doing it. So what is the long-established and repeated law here? What is our doctrine? Surely if these things are written down in constitutionally valid documents, then no temporary majority of bishops could simply override it in an attempted coup, as part of a bid for control? Surely they don’t think that whatever they want is Anglican doctrine, regardless of what is written down for us all to abide by?

Ten things can be said. Forgive the length and repetition here, but that is actually part of the point:

1. Canon Law says that our doctrine is defined by Scripture, the teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils which are accordance with Scripture, and the 39 Articles, Prayer Book, and Ordinal. There is literally zero support for blessing same-sex marriage or allowing clergy to be in such relationships, in those documents.

Article 20 indeed states that “The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” This is what the bishops are literally hell-bent on doing.

Article 7 says that no Christian is free to disobey the moral commandments of God. Jesus declared all foods clean for us, but he did not declare all sexual practices clean; indeed he stated that sexual immorality (along with other sins) defiles us (Mark 7). Even schoolboys would hoot at the impudence of anyone who tried to claim Jesus meant to exclude same-sex relationships from his definition of sexual immorality.

2. The Book of Common Prayer depicts marriage as between one man and one woman. It also says: “be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God.”

How it can be asserted now that same-sex marriages are lawful and good according to God’s word, we are not told. Apparently we have to wait until the Faith and Order Commission can do some theology and let us know, or until we’ve had the compromise in place for a 3 year period of “discernment”. As we’ve already said, this is a curious thing. It is normally considered more prudent to discern whether something is right or wrong before you do it. When crossing the road it is wise to check there is no traffic before you step out. True, just heading onto the road and being struck by a car would help you discern it was not safe, but would it not be better to have looked for traffic first? Especially when others on the pavement are shouting: “Stop”!

3. Canon B30 says “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.”

If the Church of England now also declares that marriage between two people of the same sex is fine, how on earth is that not a change of doctrine? Why does the law of non-contradiction not apply? Is this really what those who passed Canon B30 meant?

4. The motion passed overwhelmingly by General Synod in November 1987 states:

“This Synod affirms that the biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal relationships is a response to, and expression of, God’s love for each one of us, and in particular affirms:

1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship;

2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;

3. that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met with a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;

4. that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, and that holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders.”

How is LLF not a change of this doctrine? Surely to assert that what the bishops are suggesting is no big deal, requires such casuistry, such mental gymnastics, that it could almost be an Olympic sport.

5. The 1991 House of Bishops report Issues in Human Sexuality argues that what it calls a ‘homophile’ orientation and attraction could not be endorsed by the Church as:

“…a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual. The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience, even including the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own day, make it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry.”

How is LLF therefore not a change of doctrine? If it isn’t a change of doctrine, why are activists and bishops furiously trying to get rid of Issues in Human Sexuality?

6. Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference (of all bishops in the Anglican Communion) declares that the Conference: “in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.” It also declares that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”

How can legitimising same sex unions by blessing them and allowing clergy to be in them, not be a change of doctrine at odds with the mind of the worldwide church?

7. The 1999 House of Bishops teaching document Marriage states that: “Marriage is a pattern that God has given in creation, deeply rooted in our social instincts, through which a man and a woman may learn love together over the course of their lives”, and that “Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy belongs within marriage exclusively.”

Surely this is contradicted by what the bishops now propose?

8. The Preface to the modern Common Worship marriage service marriage tells the congregation that: “Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.”

If marriage is also for husband and husband, or wife and wife, surely Common Worship is wrong, and that would be a change of doctrine? You can see why intelligent people might be confused.

9. The 2005 House of Bishops Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships states:

“It has always been the position of the Church of England that marriage is a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace. Marriage, defined as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman, is central to the stability and health of human society. It continues to provide the best context for the raising of children.”

“The Church of England’s teaching is classically summarised in The Book of Common Prayer, where the marriage service lists the causes for which marriage was ordained, namely: ‘for the procreation of children, …for a remedy against sin [and]…. for the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other.”

“In the light of this understanding the Church of England teaches that ‘sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively’… Sexual relationships outside marriage, whether heterosexual or between people of the same sex, are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings.”

This teaching was reiterated (word for word) in the December 2019 Pastoral Statement on same-sex and opposite sex civil partnerships.

What is now being proposed is directly the opposite of that. Who could say it is not a change of doctrine, and keep a straight face?

10. Finally, the House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same-sex Marriage (2014) stated that the same principles should apply with same-sex marriages as with Civil Partnerships and that in consequence: “Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways.” It also stated that “Getting married to someone of the same sex would, however, clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England… it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage.”

How is it a “modest” change, to reverse this completely? How? We must be forgiven for being somewhat bemused. The Bishop of Oxford wants us to believe this is a modest step to bring things in line with what is actually happening. But it is actually a wholesale reversal of everything above. Besides, if it was a modest change as he suggests, and he really did care about preserving unity and avoiding schism, surely the most statesmanlike and pastoral response would be to not go ahead with the proposals causing all the problems. Anyone in ordinary parish ministry would certainly consider such a diplomatic course if they were pushing something so controversial against the established laws and the strong opposition of a sizeable number of their most active members.

In the light of all these doctrinal statements and repeated declarations, the only way that the Church of England could permit with integrity services of blessing for same-sex couples, including same-sex marriages for clergy — would be to repudiate all the statements just listed above and declare that it now believes something else instead. Only in this way could the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, that the Church of England prays as it believes, be maintained. Only in this way could anybody believe anything the bishops tell us. It would at least be honest.

Trying to openly overturn it all, honestly and clearly, would have some integrity, even if it would be seriously in error. But that’s clearly not what they want to do. They want to pretend that nothing has changed, and that the new proposals simply regularise what’s been happening for years anyway, according to the Bishop of Oxford, and which we have been “content” with, he astonishingly claims. Despite the fact that even a secular employment tribunal has recognised that the Church’s doctrine of marriage is clear and does exclude same-sex marriages for clergy (and therefore upheld the withholding of a license from a clergyman who entered into one). If clergy have been ordained and permitted to live outside the current guidelines listed above, it is the fault of those very bishops who are now trying to get us to accept all this as not a change of doctrine. We should not be coerced into passively accepting their past (and possibly deliberate) failures in disciplinary safeguarding, which is one of their core tasks as bishops. Who knows what other guidelines and doctrines they might fail or be failing to uphold.

The world

Both GAFCON and The Global South Fellowship of Anglicans have repudiated the bishops’ proposals. Indeed, the GSFA said that it “deeply regrets the decision of the Church of England’s General Synod today, supporting the House of Bishops’ proposals to ‘bless’ Same Sex Unions – which goes against the overwhelming mind of the Anglican Communion.”

To claim as the Bishop of Oxford tries to that many provinces contain a variety of views or that there is no consensus, is tendentious in the extreme, and ignores the blatantly clear consensus of the vast majority of the Anglican world that what our bishops are doing is wrong. And this, the Global South says, “has now triggered a widespread loss of confidence” in the Church of England’s leadership of the Communion. It is very hard to resist a charge of western elitism, when one notes where all the pressure is coming from to liberalise on these matters. The snobbish, Anglo-centric, and dictatorial behaviour that my non-Western friends tell me they observed at recent Lambeth conferences and meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council is not reassuring.

Crisis, what crisis?

The Alliance letter is criticised by the Bishop of Oxford for “catasrophising language” because it talks of “incalculable damage to the structure, integrity and mission of the national church”. Only the most blinkered could fail to see that this is exactly what is happening because of LLF. According to the Church of England’s own figures, attendance is down 29% since 2015, ordinand numbers are down 40% since 2019, and most dioceses are now in a structural deficit position. Though obviously there are several factors at play here, the confusion and catastrophic loss of trust caused by LLF is certainly responsible for a great deal of this. One would have to be trapped in a deluded bubble not to see that. Major leaders and networks within the growing and thriving parts of the church have consistently and publicly expressed deep regret and concern at developments. The global Anglican Communion has even rejected the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

On what definition is this not a leadership crisis, of the most epic proportions? Surely the bishop needs to get his head out of the sand. It’s like the House of Bishops are trying to build a massive extension without planning permission, in the hope that everything will be alright once it’s up, fait accompli. But as Captain Tom’s family discovered recently, that isn’t always what happens.

The early church flourished in a time of confusion and persecution by being clear on the gospel, refuting heresy, and acting to counter it ecclesiologically where necessary, even if that seemed “irregular”. That’s the way forward here.

Schism?

The Bishop of Oxford labels The Alliance approach “a deep and disproportionate schism”. Schism is a heavily-loaded term that is too easily thrown about in the current debate. Some theology or history might be of assistance in helping to understand what it actually means. Obviously I would point to Fight Valiantly: Contending for the Faith against False Teaching in the Church if anyone wants to explore this whole area in detail. But there’s also Gerald Bray’s very useful book, Heresy, Schism, and Apostasy.

The Lutheran Confessions are very helpful on this. They say:

“The impiety and tyranny of bishops cause schism and discord. Therefore, if the bishops are heretics, or will not ordain suitable persons, the churches are in duty bound before God, according to divine law, to ordain for themselves pastors and ministers. Even though this is now called an irregularity or schism, it should be known that the godless doctrine and tyranny of bishops is chargeable with it. Paul commands that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be considered accursed (Galatians 1:7-9).”

Further, they add:

“The adversaries also quote Hebrews 13:17, ‘Obey your leaders.’ This passage requires obedience to the Gospel. It does not establish a dominion for the bishops apart from the Gospel. Neither should the bishops enact traditions contrary to the Gospel or interpret their traditions contrary to the Gospel. When they do this, obedience is prohibited, according to Galatians 1:9, ‘If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.’”

In addition, the Augsburg Confession says clearly that when bishops “teach or establish anything against the Gospel, then the congregations are forbidden by God’s command to obey them… The Canonical Laws also command this… And Augustine writes: ‘Neither must we submit to catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God.’ (Contra Petiliani Epistolam).”

The biblical book of Jude is quite clear where schism originates. “But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, ‘In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.’ These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.”

So if there is schism, it is caused by those who do not follow the Bible. It is emphatically notcaused by those who seek to uphold it and follow it and reject innovations. This must be especially the case where the teaching and practices being proposed are said by the Scriptures to exclude people from the kingdom of God, as is the case here (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-7). Surely to redefine the sins mentioned here as things which are actually good and appropriate for Christians, would be the very definition of a salvation issue, one on which our eternal destiny turns? It would be, as Jude puts it, to “pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 4).

The Bishop uncharitably accuses The Alliance of a lack of perspective and of neglecting “mercy, love and joy and the priority of gospel proclamation.” He and I would not agree on what the gospel is that we are proclaiming, because we preach different versions of Jesus. It is not Anglican to preach just the mercy, love, and joy bits of scripture and ignore these stark warnings. Indeed, the mercy, love, and joy spoken of in the Bible are always in the context of God’s holiness and judgment, and don’t make sense without those. He is merciful to sinners who repent. He loves those who turn back to him from rebellion. He gives joy to those who turn from their disordered desires and embrace him by faith alone. That’s the whole reason for “gospel proclamation” in the first place, to save us from our sin. Unless one believes that everybody is saved in the end anyway. Which I suspect many clergy and bishops actually do, quite contrary to what the Bible and the Articles say. That’s not an Anglican theology.

Tolerance of disagreement and error here would not be “wisely allowing a diversity of interpretations in a disputed area” as some might say, a sign of Anglicanism’s supposedly secure ability to embrace a diversity of views. It would not be spiritually loving or pastorally accommodating: it would be literally soul-destroying. We should no more tolerate this than we would tolerate a drop or two of poison in our afternoon tea. No-one with compassion for those caught in sin can simply affirm it unquestioningly without showing the better way — peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ who calls us to “Repent and believe.” With him there is forgiveness, a fresh start, and the power of the Spirit to enable us to live for him.

I have quoted this before, more than once, but it remains relevant: as the theologian John Calvin put it, “How can any one have the effrontery to expect that God will aid him in accomplishing desires at variance with his word? What God with his own lips pronounces cursed, never can be prosecuted with his blessing.” (Institutes 3.7.9).

So, no, bishop; we will not be uniting behind your compromise (even if it was more pleasantly and graciously presented). Instead, we will pray:

Almighty God,
you show to those who are in error the light of your truth,
that they may return to the way of righteousness:
grant to all those who are admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion,
that they may reject those things that are contrary to their profession,
and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same;
through our Lord Jesus Christ, who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
Amen.*

* The Church of England’s collect for the 2nd Sunday of Lent (Year C).

Dr Lee Gatiss is the Director of Church Society.

First published at Church Society, 3rd July 2024.

CEEC welcomes orthodox bishops’ statement ahead of Synod

“CEEC is grateful to the group of 11 bishops who have today published* a warning, ahead of General Synod, that the LLF proposals currently on the table would go against church doctrine, further endanger the unity of the church and by-pass proper canonical process.

We commend the courage of these bishops as they write, ‘we are among a number of bishops unable to support the direction of travel presented to the bishops at our most recent meeting, or the proposals to be brought to General Synod later this month.’

We support the assertion of this group as they state that while they support the emphasis on and importance of unity highlighted in the proposals, they believe that the proposals will not ‘protect our unity in mission to the nation or our partnerships within the wider Church.’…”

– Read the full Statement from The Church of England Evangelical Council.

Why isn’t the House of Bishops prepared to engage?

“It is now fairly clear what the next stage of the Prayers of Love and Faith process will be. In July the House of Bishops will propose that stand alone services for the blessing of same-sex couples (including those who have entered into a civil same-sex marriage) will be permitted under the terms of Canon B5 and will also propose that the current discipline forbidding clergy to be in same-sex marriages will no longer be applied in at least some dioceses

It is also clear that, at the moment, the bishops are absolutely intransigent in refusing to even consider the possibility of either a provincial settlement to meet the needs of traditionalists as requested by CEEC, or even some kind of non-provincial transferred episcopal arrangements for traditionalists.

The maximum they seem prepared to offer is some kind of regionally arranged delegated episcopal oversight, which would still leave traditionalists under the ordinary jurisdiction of their diocesan bishops regardless of where that bishop stands on the sexuality issue.

What struck me as I digested this news over the weekend is that in coming to their current positions the bishops appear to have simply ignored four key statements made into three previous House of Bishops’ documents.…”

– Martin Davie points out key failures of the Church of England’s House of Bishops.

Image: Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.

We cannot agree to disagree, says CEEC’s John Dunnett

From The Church of England Evangelical Council:

The meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England concluded on Tuesday.

Commenting on the debate on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process, Revd Canon John Dunnett, National Director, Church of England Evangelical Council, CEEC, said: “The decision taken by General Synod to move to next business [before the end of the debate] is demonstrative of widespread dissatisfaction with how the bishops have been progressing the LLF process. The one thing that Synod could largely agree on was that neither side could support the proposals that would emanate from the motion, as tabled at Synod. We believe that GS2346, as presented at Synod, is riddled with confusion and ambiguity, contains proposals we could never support, and outlines inadequate structural provision.

“Significantly, the move to next business is also evidence that we cannot ‘square the circle’ in the debate, as currently framed. This issue is not adiaphora – we cannot agree to disagree.

“This is why we continue to call for a legal and structural settlement without theological compromise, which we believe is the only way forward. We will gladly work with Bishop Martyn Snow to explore this route further. Between now and July, we will be calling on churches and their leaders to articulate their support for this.

“Many feel that the fabric of the Church of England is tearing as a result of the Living in Love and Faith process and that structural differentiation is the only way of maintaining any degree of unity.”

– Source.

Living in Love and Faith: what now for those who cannot ‘agree to disagree’?

“Yesterday the Bishop of Leicester, Martyn Snow, tried to reset the ongoing Living in Love and Faith (LLF) debate, asking the General Synod of the Church of England ‘to be reconciled with God and show this by being reconciled to one another’.

He talked of the missionary imperative of the Church finding a way to ‘agree to disagree’ and pleaded for Synod to avoid “a series of speeches simply saying, ‘Synod needs to agree with me’, or others just need to change their mind”.

But the problem facing the Church is, as Ed Shaw said, ‘We do not all believe the same things when it comes to identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage.’…”

– Susie Leafe continues to analyse the debates at the current meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod.

Church Society Podcast S13E03: CEEC

“This episode of the Church Society podcast comes from the 2024 Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) annual residential meeting.

Three members and guests of CEEC tell us about different areas of work that is ongoing.

Kay Carter of Christianity Explored talks about the evangelism consultations and some of the insights which they are bringing.
Tim Buckley, who ministers in a very deprived parish in Plymouth, shares some of the work of the Privilege, Class and Poverty workstream.
Charlie Skrine, Rector of All Souls’ Langham Place, discusses the most recent developments in the LLF process.”

– First up in the podcast, Dr Ros Clarke speaks with Charlie Skrine about the latest discussions on Living in Love and Faith.

Listen to the podcast here.

A great reminder to continue to pray for faithful Christians in the Church of England. (From 14:50, Charlie has a particular request for prayer.)

Photo: Charlie Skrine at JAEC 2023.

Church of England Evangelical Council.

Letter to Church Times about Living in Love and Faith

Anglican Mainstream has posted this letter sent to Church Times by the Rev James Paice in London:

“Dear Sir

I read with interest your piece by the LLF co-lead Bishops about the need to live with difference.

They appear not to have heard CEEC and other conservative clergy :
blessing same sex relationships in defiance of Scripture has been said to have been a first order issue all along, which is why there has been repeated calls for a separate Province, which has been continually resisted.

We are in the woeful situation that we are in, because despite claiming to do so, the Archbishops have not listened to those who stand on the historic teaching of the Bible. No wonder faithful clergy have been leaving.

Yours faithfully.
The Rev James Paice
St Luke’s Church
Ryfold Road
London SW19 8BZ.”

He speaks for many in the Church of England, and many others around the world who are watching with dismay.

The article to which he is responding is linked here at Anglican Mainstream.

And somewhat related:

‘We must find ways of being joyful in our disagreement’ – The Archbishop of Canterbury preaches in Rome.

A vicar writes to his congregation about the Synod decision on ‘gay blessings’

“On Wednesday, after nearly nine hours of debate on Living in Love and Faith (LLF), the Church of England’s General Synod voted on a motion, put forward by the House of Bishops (HoB), and amended by a proposal by the Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft (see italics below).

In effect, + Steven’s amendment torpedoed a carefully staged proposal by the HoB, including that ‘prayers of blessing’ for gay relationship could not be used as a ‘stand-alone’ service, separate from a main Sunday service, as the perception and experience of those attending would be that the service was a ‘wedding’ in all but name, and therefore, the CofE would have changed its Doctrine on Marriage.

…

For now, I’d simply ask you to reflect on whether it is right, and a Godly way to change the Doctrine of the Church on marriage via one amendment, with no notice given to the wider Synod (until the actual start of the London meetings), and that the amendment occurred via a 57% to 52.18% against vote? As a PCC here, would probably not even choose a vacuum cleaner with that sort of division! After 7 years of LLF meetings, talks, reflections, study and debate across the CofE, it came down to a 5% difference? Remember, a formal change in doctrine needs a two-thirds majority in ALL three houses. That’s will now be by-passed by new praxis.”

– Anglican Mainstream has published this letter to his congregation from the Rev. Paul Eddy. It gives a very helpful insight into the fallout and mess caused by the Church of England’s General Synod vote. And plenty to pray about.

Image: Paul Eddy in an interview with the Christian Institute in January 2023.

Do you want me to resign over same-sex blessings, Archbishop Welby asks conservatives

“Accounts have emerged this week of two fractious meetings between the Archbishop of Canterbury and representatives groups engaged with Living in Love and Faith (LLF).

The meetings, held last Friday, were billed in the invitation as a ‘further engagement opportunity ahead of the meeting of General Synod in November, so that we are able to share with you the intentions of the bishops and so you are able to share your thoughts and concerns with us’. …”

– Anglican Mainstream, has this link to an article in Church Times.

As you may have read earlier, when the evangelical and Anglo-Catholic leaders were asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if he should resign, Church Society’s Dr Lee Gatiss answered for many around the world – Yes.

Related, from February 20, 2023 –

“The GSFA is no longer able to recognise the present Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Hon & Most Revd Justin Welby, as the ‘first among equals’ Leader of the global Communion. …”

Archbishop of Canterbury invites representatives of “progressive organisations and networks” to Lambeth Palace

“On Friday afternoon, forty one people gathered forming a huge rectangle in the room on the top floor of the Lambeth Palace library. Thirty four were representatives of progressive organisations and networks seeking the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England.

I think the meeting represents a turning point in the decades-long movement in the Church of England towards achieving the full and equal inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in our church – but although progress may now be made, the future is still very uncertain. …

Archbishop Justin said he was totally and unequivocally committed to the goal of a radical new Christian inclusion that embraced LBTQIA+ people and he was surprised and shocked that we ever doubted that. A number of people said they had never heard him say that before. If only he had said this loud and clear before now, it would have made a huge difference. Indeed it would, but it has until now clearly been too difficult to say. He was surprised that people didn’t know this is his position. He compared himself with all other bishops saying he was making the most diverse appointments.…”

– This article by Colin Coward, long-time campaigner for ‘LGBTQIA+ rights’ in the Church of England, gives an insight into what is happening behind the scenes with regards to LLF.

Link via Anglican.ink. Photo: Jacqui J. Sze, archbishopofcanterbury.org.

Young clergy and ordinands push back against gay blessings proposals

“Over one hundred men and women training for ordination in the Church of England have written a public letter warning the church was set to ‘fracture’ should the House of Bishops’ Living in Love and Faith (LLF) proposals on same-sex blessings be adopted.…”

– George Conger writes at Anglican.ink.

The letter begins:

“Dear Bishops and Archbishops,

We write to you from a broad coalition of those who share a call to ordained ministry in the Church of England. We include people within the discernment process, in training, and those in their diaconate year. At the time of writing we span ten training institutions and twenty-six dioceses. This group draws men and women from varied backgrounds including the HTB and New Wine networks, conservative evangelicals and traditional Anglicans, all of whom care deeply for and are heavily invested in the Church of England.

As those in whom you have invested, who you are preparing for decades of ministry, we need to convey our grief in seeing the current direction of travel concerning the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF). …”

– Read it all here. (PDF file)

Also in the Church of England:

Racial justice pilgrims [from London] visit Anglican Communion Office during tour of London – Anglican Communion News Service.

Bishop of Rochester and Bishop of Ebbsfleet speak about the House of Bishops meeting and press statement

Two Bishops in the Church of England have issued their own statements in addition to the joint statement of dissenting bishops of 12 October 2023.

Statement from Bishop Jonathan Gibbs, Bishop of Rochester:

“I have always prayed that God would surprise us and open avenues that we have never conceived, in ways that would honour and affirm people with a wide diversity of views on these hugely important and sensitive issues, while remaining faithful to our inheritance of faith.

It is therefore with great sadness and reluctance that I have felt compelled to join with others in indicating that I cannot endorse the decisions taken at the meeting of the House of Bishops on Monday 9 October, or the press statement issued afterwards, which I believe does not adequately reflect the decisions made or the depth of disagreement within the House. …”

– Read his full statement.

See also this statement from Bishop Rob Munro, Bishop of Ebbsfleet:

“The press release does not make clear the depth of disagreement within the House about these proposals. …

I am deeply concerned that the approach that is being proposed will ultimately harm our unity, sanctity, catholicity and apostolicity as a Church, and seriously impact our mission. I believe it is necessary, in commitment to my consecration vows- to uphold God’s Word, to teach the doctrine of Christ and refute error- to publicly raise these concerns, that I have been expressing in the House.

When the fuller details of the proposals are published, I hope to address specific concerns in more detail. I continue to be supportive of the approach of the CEEC and encourage you to keep in step with their collective response.”

– Read his full statement – via Anglican.ink.

Image: Bishop Jonathan Gibbs (left) and Bishop Rob Munro.

Letter in Church Times on the present crisis from an incumbent: “unity has already broken down”

A Letter published in Church Times:

“Sir, – For the first time in more than 20 years of ordained ministry, I have declined to give permission for a child of my parish to be baptised in a neighbouring parish where the parents have begun attending. The reason is that I have heard from several sources that the priest of that parish is teaching publicly that same-sex relationships can be blessed in church. This is contrary to scripture and 2000 years of Christian teaching and pastoral practice.

The Bishops of the Church of England have decided this week that they will put revised prayers to the General Synod in November, after a long and heated debate in July. So far, they have declined any appeal by the Church of England Evangelical Council and other bodies for a separate province for either revisionists or conservatives, claiming that they ‘want to maintain unity’.

I have to tell them now: unity has already broken down, when we cannot commend the ministry of a fellow Anglican minister (or indeed bishop). ‘Good separation’ has to be better than years of the breakdown of structures.”

– At Anglican Mainstream.

“Why we left the Church of England”

Here’s news from The Anglican Convocation in Europe –

On Sunday 1 October 2023, Bishop Andy Lines inaugurated Wellfield Church, Leyland, Lancashire, into the Anglican Convocation in Europe and instituted Mark Simpson as Rector.

Mark reflects on their journey out of the Church of England and into ACE:

“When people used to ask me, ‘Why are you still in the CofE when (a) you have little to do with it; and (b) you don’t like where it’s going?’, my answer used to be the standard evangelical one: It’s a good boat to fish from, and the revisionists are the cuckoos in the nest, not us. The foundational teaching of the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles is excellent, even if many of the leaders don’t seem to believe it, follow it or teach it.

I still think that’s right. However, it’s also quite convenient to take view that mean means you don’t have to change anything. February 2023 was a turning point.

The more I (and church members) watched of that dreadful General Synod, the more we were utterly disgusted. There was the total ignorance of “the Scriptures and the power of God” that many of our leaders displayed; there was the way the Archbishop of York patronised those who appealed to Truth; it was even just that these basic issues were open for debate at that level. I’d taken part in ‘Shared Conversations’ several years ago; I know how disingenuous church leaders can be. But now here they were, not sworn to confidentiality, but in public.

When I said to people in church, for the first time, “I think we have to leave, don’t we?”, they all said yes. I’m not saying that choosing to stay in the CofE is a sin; but actually deciding, after all this time, to leave had the same feeling of repenting of a long-held sin. It felt right.

There were many parts of scripture that drove the conviction to leave. One in particular was Hebrews 13:13, to first-century Jewish Christians who were squeezed out of the life of the synagogue – “Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.” It must have been hard for them. Maybe, like us, they said, ‘They’re the cuckoos in the nest – this is our heritage!’ Maybe it was hard to hear the writer effectively saying, ‘Let them have it all – the buildings, the infrastructure, the familiarity and stability.’ But this is the way of Jesus and his kingdom.

In many ways it was easy for Wellfield Church to leave. We didn’t have to leave buildings, or church members or a vicarage behind. But really, that’s largely because we’d planned it that way for many years. We’d kept our finances separate from the diocese, bought our own house, got our church building owned in Trust. When the time came to act on our convictions, we were ready.

When we were looking for somewhere else to belong, we were glad to discover ACE. We’re so pleased to be able to stand clearly with the real men of God who lead GAFCON. The covid years showed us that the Conservative Evangelical world that we are a part of is really not the be-all-and-end-all, in terms of having courage and battle-readiness in a hostile world. People in ACE may not all agree on everything, but do agree on the gospel and the pressing issues of our generation, and seek to trust and obey our Lord. That’s the fellowship we were looking for. It might be small, young and fragile; but that’s our story as a church too. And I think it’s the story of the true church down the ages, and what Jesus taught us to expect.”

Photo: Mark Simpson is handed a Bible as a symbol of his pastoral office by Bishop Andy Lines.

Received by e-mail.

To learn more about Wellfield Church, see their website.

← Previous Page — Next Page →

Updates from the Church of England General Synod Monday 8th July 2024

Church Society Responds to The Bishop of Oxford

CEEC welcomes orthodox bishops’ statement ahead of Synod

Why isn’t the House of Bishops prepared to engage?

We cannot agree to disagree, says CEEC’s John Dunnett

Living in Love and Faith: what now for those who cannot ‘agree to disagree’?

Church Society Podcast S13E03: CEEC

Letter to Church Times about Living in Love and Faith

A vicar writes to his congregation about the Synod decision on ‘gay blessings’

Do you want me to resign over same-sex blessings, Archbishop Welby asks conservatives

Archbishop of Canterbury invites representatives of “progressive organisations and networks” to Lambeth Palace

Young clergy and ordinands push back against gay blessings proposals

Bishop of Rochester and Bishop of Ebbsfleet speak about the House of Bishops meeting and press statement

Letter in Church Times on the present crisis from an incumbent: “unity has already broken down”

“Why we left the Church of England”

Search

Learn more

Recent News

What we believe

News categories

Archives

Admin

Credits