The Church of England’s turmoil over same-sex marriage continues. With the resignation in November of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, the newest growth within the long-running saga is one other delay by the bishops in bringing in standalone companies to bless same-sex {couples} – companies that can carefully resemble same-sex weddings.
How did we get right here? A quick recap. Missing the votes in Common Synod to herald the full-scale adjustments suddenly, in December 2023 the Home of Bishops voted to commend prayers for the blessing of same-sex {couples} – the Prayers of Love and Religion, or PLF – to be used in atypical church companies.
Initially the thought was then to herald the standalone companies utilizing the correct, legally safe route i.e. beneath Canon B2 (the canons of the Church being its governing guidelines). However in July 2024 that plan unexpectedly modified and the bishops and Common Synod voted (narrowly) to herald standalone companies for an ‘experimental interval’ beneath the identical non-legally-secure route used to herald the ordinary-service prayers (i.e. beneath Canon B5). The graduation of that experimental interval has now been delayed, in all probability into 2026.
The query many conservative Anglicans are asking, although, is why, if the ‘B5’ route isn’t legally safe, aren’t the PLF prayers being subjected to some type of strong authorized problem?
It is a good query. The Alliance – a gaggle of church leaders representing congregations estimated to quantity to over a 3rd of the CofE’s standard Sunday attendance – wrote to the bishops in July 2023 denouncing their strategy as “illegal, unconstitutional and illegitimate”.
This appears to indicate a authorized problem shall be forthcoming. So the place is it?
One problem is that the CofE’s route for difficult improvements on doctrinal grounds isn’t match for goal. It has solely been used twice in 60 years, and by no means in respect of prayers or liturgy. Regardless that the PLF prayers are plainly opposite to the CofE’s doctrine of marriage, a authorized problem utilizing that route (recognized by the arcane title of ‘The Courtroom of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved’) is unlikely to succeed.
It is not essential to go down that street although. That is as a result of the non-legally-secure B5 route used to introduce the PLF accommodates a provision that merely permits any bishop to subject binding instructions to the clergy in his or her diocese that they could not use the prayers. It’s because the B5 route actually simply permits particular person clergy to make use of their very own discretion to introduce modern prayers (the clue is within the title: it is headed ‘Of the discretion of ministers in conduct of public prayer’). It is then as much as their bishop to try what they’re doing and resolve if it is okay.
So why aren’t the conservative bishops doing that? Why aren’t they what their liberal clergy are doing and saying, ‘Cling on a minute, that is opposite to our doctrine of marriage, cease it now’?
In spite of everything, such strong motion could be a really highly effective problem to that mischievous majority of bishops who’ve successfully tried to bypass the correct course of for bringing in same-sex blessings. Think about if various dioceses with conservative bishops banned the brand new prayers as a result of they’re opposite to the Church’s educating on marriage – making clear at a stroke precisely how legally unsafe the route the bulk tried to make use of was. In addition to being worthwhile in its personal proper, this creation of PLF-free dioceses could be a precursor to the eventual formation of a separate area within the CofE for these of orthodox religion, one of many key targets of the Alliance.
The issue confronted by a bishop who desires to strive to do that, nevertheless, is that the bishops voted nationally to ‘commend’ the prayers. Does not this overrule any particular person bishop who desires to direct in any other case?
In no way. For the reality is {that a} ‘commendation’ by the Home of Bishops does not have any authorized impact. It is not one thing talked about in any of the Church’s canons. It is only a follow the bishops have developed, successfully as a manner of guiding ministers in exercising their discretion beneath Canon B5. However it does not stop a person bishop, or group of bishops, from taking a special view to the bulk and directing their clergy in any other case. A majority of bishops may want to declare that the PLF are in conformity with doctrine, however their colleagues usually are not obliged to agree, and beneath the Church’s canons it’s every bishop who’s charged with issuing instructions beneath Canon B5 in his or her diocese. What the vast majority of bishops may suppose is absolutely neither right here nor there.
Maybe some conservative bishops have been misadvised in any other case and instructed that their fingers are tied by the Home of Bishops’ commendation of the PLF. However it’s not exhausting to see why such recommendation have to be fallacious. In spite of everything, if this was the case then it might make such a ‘commendation’ a manner of turning B5 right into a legally safe route, taking out the necessity for the correct B2 course of for introducing liturgy. That is clearly not what the method is designed for, nor how it’s written. The purpose of B5 is to permit particular person clergy to innovate beneath the path of their bishop; it’s not to permit a majority of bishops to gang up on their orthodox colleagues and bypass B2.
The place does this depart us? A wayward majority within the Home of Bishops has launched same-sex blessings beneath a route that isn’t legally safe. As a result of it’s not legally safe, conservative bishops have it inside their energy to ban such blessings of their dioceses. That is fascinating in itself and in addition a precursor to creating an area throughout the CofE for orthodox Christianity to flourish. The conservative bishops have to cease listening to these whispering in any other case and begin making it occur.
Dr Will Jones is a trustee of Anglican Mainstream.
