Updated to add press reports
General Synod completed its debate on Living in Love and Faith a short time ago after eight hours of debate. It passed the following motion.
That this Synod, recognising the commitment to learning and deep listening to God and to each other of the Living in Love and Faith process, and desiring with God’s help to journey together while acknowledging the different deeply held convictions within the Church:
(a) lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to LGBTQI+ people and the harm that LGBTQI+ people have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church;
(b) recommit to our shared witness to God’s love for and acceptance of every person by continuing to embed the Pastoral Principles in our life together locally and nationally;
(c) commend the continued learning together enabled by the Living in Love and Faith process and resources in relation to identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage;
(d) welcome the decision of the House of Bishops to replace Issues in Human Sexuality with new pastoral guidance;
(e) welcome the response from the College of Bishops and look forward to the House of Bishops further refining, commending and issuing the Prayers of Love and Faith described in GS 2289 and its Annexes;
(f) invite the House of Bishops to monitor the Church’s use of and response to the Prayers of Love and Faith, once they have been commended and published, and to report back to Synod in five years’ time;
(g) endorse the decision of the College and House of Bishops not to propose any change to the doctrine of marriage, and their intention that the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England.
The voting was by houses.
Bishops: 36 in favour, 4 against, 2 recorded abstentions
Clergy: 111 in favour, 85 against, 3 recorded abstentions
Laity: 103 in favour, 92 against, 5 recorded abstentions
There is an official press release: Prayers for God’s blessing for same-sex couples take step forward after Synod debate.
Press reports
Church Times Bishops’ proposals to bless same-sex couples carried by Synod, despite sustained opposition
The Guardian Church of England votes in favour of blessings for same-sex unions
Telegraph Blessings for gay couples approved by Church of England for first time
Telegraph Church of England ostracised after it backs blessings for gay couples
BBC News Church of England backs plans to bless gay couples
I will be honest. I expected this outcome. I am devastated. I have to leave the Church of England at this point. God bless you all.
The Church of England that I love will be much the poorer without you and others who feel the same, Susannah. I think I understand why you need to go, I just wish it wasn’t so.
Richard
I am sorry. It’s all very sad and profoundly upsetting. Whatever happened to those words from 1 John 4: where love is, God is also? Why is this not enough? I am profoundly ashamed. May God be with you on your journey.
You must do what you must do.
Will you leave TA as well?
And may God bless + you Susannah, you deserve so much better than whatever the CoE’s become. May the road rise to meet you and may your destination be everything it can be.
I fully understand your feelings. I have articulated several times my two personal priorities: 1. That vulnerable people will no longer be guilted into celibacy to which they are not called 2. That same sex marriages are recognised as true marriages in all churches of the Church of England. Neither has been met. Both seem further away than ever, although maybe there is a glimmer of hope for the first. Like you I am profoundly disappointed, especially as some proponents of same sex marriage even voted for these crumbs. And yet. And yet, for what it is worth, having prayed… Read more »
Where will you go?
A profoundly divided Synod.
We are deceiving ourselves – liberal or conservative – if we think we can judge its future trajectory.
The breakdown of voting may add a little clarity. Conservatives in favour may have accepted a-f in order to get g enshrined. That may enable them to play a braver hand when the pastoral guidelines are presented and hold the bishops and clergy accountable for misuse of the Prayers of Love and Faith. On the face of it there are very few, if any, winners at the end of the long and tortuous project.
Vaughan Roberts is the leading figure for conservatives. His speech at the outset of the debate is a crucial statement.
He called for a mediated a settlement.
As the debate reached its conclusion, the Archbishop of York – not a natural friend of conservatives – referenced Roberts’ contribution and went on to say himself “we need some sort of settlement”.
A miserable day for us all, but at last work might begin on walking apart so we can become good neighbours and at peace with the liberals.
Peter, the contribution from Vaughan Roberts interested me. I’m very curious as to what you both want. Parishes in the Church of England have a fair degree of autonomy and presumably your parish would not wish to marry same sex couples. Vaughan Roberts said he was “happy” for same sex couples to be married in Church. Why do we need a separate structure to achieve that ? I assume you are an evangelical. If you can live with High Mass in some Anglican Churches, why not equal marriage ? Equal marriage is a discrete event without the problems of female… Read more »
“If you can live with High Mass in some Anglican Churches, why not equal marriage?” Absolutely: you show the lack of proportion in the diehard Con Evo position very clearly by this comparison. I would add that the historic *real* Protestants of the Continent with whom we are in communion – the Evangelical Lutheran churches of the Nordic countries and Germany – seem to have managed the whole issue so much better, without all this drama and nastiness. They take the *real* Protestant view that marriage is not a sacrament, unlike our Anglican Evangelicals who seem to have turned it… Read more »
Precisely!
Living in a catholic ambiance, Portugal, english speaking evangelicals seem an oddity: concerning sexuality and abortion they emulate the hardest catholics (a tiny portion here), not the “continental” protestantism!
The conservative evangelicals want a settlement, and their position is that they are happy for same sex couples to be married in church only IF they are given a separate structure where that never happens. My abiding question remains, if they had separate ordination training, separate ordinations, separate bishops… then in what would our unity as a church consist?
We are not a united church. When a marriage has died the parties have to accept the marriage is over. We must move beyond denial.
There will be no settlement until and unless we accept conservatives and liberals are no longer one church.
However, without a settlement there will be – as the bishop of Guildford said – a “war of attrition” which will leave only rubble in its wake
There would a mutual recognition of orders and communicant status. What more is needed?
Conservatives want a visibly separate diocese/province.
What they offer is the prospect that they would then play no further part in the conduct of the affairs of a revisionist/progressive province.
It is important to be clear a settlement discussion is not about conservatives convincing people that what they (conservatives) want is valid. We would not be in the current mess if we were able to persuade each other of anything.
The question is do you want a province that you can run according to your own conscience
If you do that opportunity is in front of you.
I don’t know if you have seen the GAFCON response?
https://twitter.com/GafconGBE/status/1623676177289297922?t=_yqTZ9DRIUfRchS3Vk7cqg&s=19
I think they will receive a positive reception this time outside their usual core group. If the Archbishop of Canterbury wants to retain his role within the Anglican Communion (and he clearly does) he may find that some sort of structural settlement within the Church of England is necessary. I understand the immense reluctance but there are good reasons to investigate the option of a new province.
A new provincial structure is the only possible outcome, other than a disorderly disintegration
This is GSFA not GAFCON. there is significant overlap but they are not the same.
Then what they want is a really a separate denomination, isn’t it? But with all the same prerogatives of the established church. Or would they consider their province/diocese to be the “Church of England”, and the rest something else?
We – I am a conservative evangelical – seek a settlement in which a new provincial structure is established. It will remain Anglican in its foundation.
It seems they always view those who disagree with them as schismatics, i.e. “soomething else.”
The ‘third’ province didn’t happen for ‘traditionalist’ catholics re women bishops, no matter how much they argued for it; notwithstanding the evangelical domination of the Anglican hierarchy, it seems unlikely to happen for conservative evangelicals this time around.
I lived through the strains over the role of women in the church as I am sure you did.
This is an entirely different magnitude of turmoil.
“I lived through the strains over the role of women in the church as I am sure you did. This is an entirely different magnitude of turmoil.” Well, no, not at all. I don’t see why homosexuality should be a first order issue for anyone. Christianity is a religion started by someone who, if he was not gay, was certainly at least homophile. He never performed a marriage (don’t you find that rather strange for the founder of a new religion that, according to your view, should regard marriage as one of its foundation doctrines?), nor gave any instruction about… Read more »
Personal comments about me don’t advance any form of discussion.
In any event, if you actually read my comments you would see I am doing my best to persuade opponents to my own view to enter mediation !
Quite how that constitutes blunt, fragile masculinity is a mystery.
Really?
I have lost count of the number of times I have said a mediated settlement has to be the next step.
If you have not noticed it is because you don’t agree, not because I have not said it
Humm …
I’m a catholic, living in Bragança. My bishop and I, we have very different understandings of Christianity: he is a Roman Catholic Church aparatchik … and I don”t give a shxt for all that parafernalia (doctrine/lithurgy/institucional structure).
But we are both united by the bound of baptism, by Jesus. He is my shepherd, I’m his sheep.
Is it so difficult to understand this?
The time has past for asking people to justify their positions.
The Church of England has today embarked on a path that will fundamentally re-cast its structure.
The job now is to manage that change.
I suspect that Parliament is about to manage it for you.
And if that’s correct–as I believe it to be–then conservatives will have badly misplayed their hand.
The time for any “settlement” negotiated within the CofE may have just passed.
The “settlement” may now be imposed from above. And it won’t be negotiated much.
If you think that the King, the Church and the Parliament are about to precipitate a national religious conflict you are deluding yourself.
The Church of England just did.
And the King is wise enough to give Royal Assent to whatever legislation Parliament may present to him.
So as usual, it comes down to what Parliament wants to do.
This is the way the UK Constitution works. You might want to acquaint yourself with it.
The King is the supreme governor of the Church of England. You overstate your position.
The idea that if the Prime minister tells the King he has to stop being supreme governor of the Church, then the King would just obediently agree is ridiculous.
I believe you overstate yours. The King is supreme governor of the Church only because Parliament says he is. If Parliament says he isn’t, then….
That is simply wrong. The King would have to assent to a Bill passed in Parliament which altered his position as supreme governor. Without the assent of the King it would not be law
As I asked once before, when was the last time the sovereign refused to assent to a bill passed by Parliament? Apparently, it was in the early 18th century. And if it happened today, it would precipitate a constitutional crisis that would make Edward VIII’s abdication look like a mere family disagreement.
It is not ridiculous, except that there is a difference between the Prime Minister’s say-so and an Act of Parliament. If Parliament passes an Act then the Sovereign will give the Royal Assent. The last time the Monarch refused to give Royal Assent was in 1708. This is not a matter of being “wise”. I think I’m right in saying that the only things the Sovereign can do of their own accord is to appoint people to the Royal Victorian Order and the Order of Merit.
And to the Orders of the Garter and the Thistle. These were claimed back by George VI.
The conventions do not just go in one direction. The King acts on the advice of his ministers. His ministers do not ask him to act against his own conscience or his view of the national interest.
Your point about who he appoints is an entirely different matter
“The King acts on the advice of his ministers. His ministers do not ask him to act against his own conscience or his view of the national interest.”
Really? How do we know?
Because that is the constitutional convention.
Are you suggesting his ministers can ask him to act against his own conscience and his own view of the national interest.
Are you suggesting our King is basically a glove puppet ?
Since you put it that way, yes. Constitutionally, he can do nothing on his own except a few insignificant appointments to some awards. He cannot even name an actor or musician or scientist to a meaningless life peerage without Parliament’s OK.
I am quite sure that the late Queen often acted against her own wishes when assenting to acts passed by both the Thatcher and Blair governments.
You are simply wrong.
You seem to believe Parliament can enact literally any law and there is no constraint of any kind on them.
We have an independent judiciary and however often you insist the sovereign is devoid of all discretion that is just not the constitutional position.
The people who labour in the machine room of thinking Anglicans do a really important and thankless task and the last few days must have been exhausting for them. There is a point at which an unending set of exchanges becomes disrespectful to them and their time.
That point has been reached regarding your preposterous characterisation of our constitution.
Therefore this discussion is at an end out of courtesy to the moderators
Pat, it is easy enough to settle this query. Are you saying the category of Bills which could be presented to the King which he might refuse to accept does not exist ? It is impossible for that to be your meaning. MPs have in history produced Bills which you know the King could not sign. Your claim is not actually that the King could not refuse to give his Assent. Your claim is that dis establishment does not belong in that category. All you are really saying is you personally have no difficulty with dis establishment. Fair enough. You’re… Read more »
“Are you saying the category of Bills which could be presented to the King which he might refuse to accept does not exist ? It is impossible for that to be your meaning. MPs have in history produced Bills which you know the King could not sign.”
I’m saying that if that category exists and the King did refuse, it would result in a constitutional crisis. Were these bills you describe (“MPs have in history produced Bills which you know the King could not sign.”) actually approved by the full House, or just introduced by an MP, or MPs?
The Con/Evos surely have the option of joining the already existing Gafcon Church in the U.K. – where they can live with their own private consciences. Whatever ever actual damage Gafcon may have done to the ACC at large, at least they have provided their own sealed refuges for their own kind.
“Their own kind”. We are human like you.
Honestly, Ron, you do no good by “othering” people because you disapprove and of their theology
They could – but they won’t . a) because there’s bound to be something they disagree with. b) there’s too many inflated egos to fit into an existing structure.
Vaughan is another highly eloquent speaker. In this case, however, the use of a vague term like “settlement” may, however, have been a mistake because I think his intended meaning was different to the later usage by ++York when he referenced the remark. Hopefully the two will speak outside of Synod.
It was not a mistake by Roberts. Conservatives have a clear sense of what they mean by “settlement” and even if it is not quite in the public domain if very widely understood
The Archbishop of York certainly knows exactly what Vaughan has in mind.
He (ABY) will obviously mean something different, but that is the nature of a peace negotiation.
At least the negotiations have begun
You raise an intriguing possibility that Synod was really a show of strength by the archbishops and Bishop of London to strengthen their hand in the real negotiations behind closed doors over the next few months. I usually hate dealings like that but it might be necessary.
Yes, I think that’s exactly what the cannier conservatives are doing. They’ll now throw all their energies into ensuring the “pastoral guidance” maintains ‘Issues’…’ prurient and cruel demand of compulsory celibacy. That so many supposed liberals have voted for this “guidance” sight-unseen really does speak volumes about why this has dragged on for decades.
James, that’s a mis reading of conservatives. We want a mediated settlement.
We have no wish to control whatever arrangements might then be put in place by what will then be a separate province.
By way of illustration, we do not expect to have a say in how the Episcopal church in America order their affairs.
Please excuse my misunderstanding, Peter: I took that conclusion from discussion with supporters of the historic position. Of course some conservatives take your position on structures (one I share as a supporter of equality in sacramental marriage), and I’ll be more careful with distinctions in future.
James, thank you for a gracious response.
The centre of gravity of the conservative position is that if today happens – which it has – we will walk apart.
What matters now is to mitigate harm and waste and seek to be good neighbours to the progressives
My experience of “settlements” with the conservatives in any discussion (political, social, religious) is that they define a success to be one in which they get everything they want and the other side gets nothing….
Im afraid I don’t accept your characterisation of the conservative position in this context.
We need a new provincial structure. We will be good neighbours to other provinces. We have absolutely no interest in inflicting detriment on anybody.
And what happens when someone from that “revisionist” province is chosen as Archbishop of Canterbury?
BTW, though I am not a member of the CoE (being a Yank), if I were, I would object to the existing provinces being called “revisionist”–they’re not the ones asking for a revision to the traditional ecclesiastical structure of the CoE.
One other point: Assuming the CoE is going to continue to meet in General Synod every two years and that the GS will consist of representatives from all provinces–including this new one you propose–how, then, will it refrain from interfering with the now-existing provinces?
General Synod will need to be restructured
The Archbishop of Canterbury will be removed by the Anglican Communion as its lead primate in April
Do you think that ACNA has been a “good neighbor” to TEC?
We have enough to sort out in the Church of England. Other provinces must attend to their own affairs
All these “will” and “must” blunt statements put me more in mind of Roderick Spode than the Bishop of Godalming!
Honestly Mark, what a blatant mis representation.
Richard asked me a direct question about another province. My response is the exact opposite of your insinuation. I’m saying it’s nothing to do with me
Peter, do you not recognise the English province of GAFCON as your nearest soul-mates in these matters in conflict? Why can you not now acknowledge them as your greatest supporters and just join them? Then there is no pretence on either side of these arguments as to what pastoral mission you truly believe in. You can then leave the Church of England – like the rest of the ACC Provinces loyal to our Founding Church of England – to go your own way – like all other intentional schismatics who move away on matters of adiaphora, not basic to the… Read more »
Why on earth should I leave the Church of England ? It’s my church as much as anybody else’s.
ConEvos know the direction of travel. Indeed they have seen it before with women bishops, and are hoping to replicate that sort of accommodation. So they are searching for a “structural” “settlement” that would allow them to remain both (i) by law established and (ii) theologically “pure.” Any such settlement, however, would require the Church of England to continue to discriminate, structurally, against women and against LGBTQIA+ people. I doubt Parliament is in any mood to allow the established church to continue to discriminate. The next move will come from Westminster. Because Parliament doesn’t trust the bishops to produce nondiscriminatory… Read more »
A divided synod but I wonder whether there will be a similar division at the parish level? Synod is not a very representative body esp the H of Laity. Perhaps my ministry was in the “wrong” sort of deaneries.We shall indeed see
Intellectually differenced but a lot of human charity in the personal interactions outside the chamber.
I think we all see that the time for rancour has past. We have to find a way out of this cauldron and that means working with those we oppose.
I personally think it’s not instrumental behaviour. There is a profound sense of grief amongst conservatives and that must be the same amongst liberals.
We genuinely want to walk apart in peace and grieve deeply at the parting.
If we are angry now it will be with provocative and antagonistic conservatives of whom there are too many.
I wish you well in the conversations ahead.
The addition of paragraph (g), together with certain anti-parliamentary remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury, could do much to encourage a private member’s bill in the Commons.
The state Church of England should not be exempt from the Equality Act of 2010, So I suggest a one clause Private Member’s Bill removing the exemption from.the Church of England.
The Church of England isn’t mentioned in the Equality Act 2010. Let’s return to calm and sensible discussion.
Why is the point not sensible?
It is perfectly possible to write a sentence that says: The Equality Act 2010 shall apply to the Church of England, by law established.
Whether Parliament _will_ enact such a sentence is another question.
But as a matter of legislative draughtsmanship, it’s perfectly feasible.
The Equality Act 2010 already applies to the Church of England (although not in those terms) by protecting freedom of religion and belief. Specifically, section 10 Religion or Belief contains these definitions of the protected characteristics: 1) Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion. (2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief. (3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a… Read more »
I have lost count of the number of times I have watched debate in both Houses of Parliament resulting in withdrawal of an amendment after the relevant Minister has patiently and courteously explained that it’s a total non-starter, but nevertheless thanking the Honourable Member or Noble Lord who has been given his/ her say on the matter!
I think what is meant is that the CofE should be excluded from the religious exemptions outlined in:
Schedule 9 Part 1 Section 2
Schedule 23 Section 2
(and possible other sections I haven’t spotted).
Ben Bradshaw, MP, as quoted in the Church Times: “It was a preliminary meeting to discuss options, and there are a number of options available: removing the exemption to the Equality Act, removing the quadruple lock on the Same-Sex Marriage Act; a simple legislative measure allowing parishes and priests to conduct same-sex marriages; [or] re-examining the 1919 Act.”
Perhaps helped along by the hoary claims that inclusivity in England will see churches in other provinces attacked (alongside a description of how they’d perceive an inclusive CoE that was deeply belittling to LGBT+ people). We’ll have to assume that it wasn’t intended as emotional blackmail, but it certainly felt like that, and shouldn’t go unnoticed.
I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone in favour of equal marriage would vote for such a discriminatory motion. It was pretty bad before the amendment but now people will expect celibacy from Issues to continue for anyone outside Holy Matrimony which now also includes some opposite sex couples too.
Exactly my thoughts I’m afraid.
It has been publicly reported that “Mr Welby choked on his tears over the risk that ‘people who will die, women who will be raped, children who will be tortured’ in anti-gay countries around the Anglican Communion if the blessings are brought in.”
So… Terrorists doing evil things around the world becomes the Archbishop’s reason for not offering equal marriage in England?
The mind boggles at the moral poverty of the Archbishop’s reasoning.
But “peace in our time,” I guess.
Yes because as Archbishop Angaelos, Archbishop Sami Fawzy, and Rev Folli Olokose said, the CofE is seen as the ‘mother church’ of the Anglican Communion, where in many greater numbers, LGBTI is not only illegal but seen as incompatible with Christianity. A change in the doctrine of the church, which this is seen as a pathway to, will in fact cause Christians in those countries to be in peril. We have a wider responsibility to consider all our member churches, not just England.
Our failure to wholeheartedly support same sex marriage will put LGBT Christians in those countries in even more peril. In not adopting same sex marriage, we have failed them.
But Archbishop Michael Ramsey declared that the Church of England was not the ‘mother church’. He was right. They are wrong.
Yes, bang your head each morning on your desk, like the blessed archbishop Michael Ramsey used to do, and intone, “I hate The Church of England”. I feel many can connect with him today.
Working for the Anglican Communion for 10 years and yes I can relate to that. One Primate visited Lambeth palace with me intoning – ‘I give thanks, O Lord, I am not in the C of E’ over and over. A Primate who would not be part of GSFA or GAFCON.
In fairness, having moved to Scotland (and the SEC) from England (and the CofE) I find myself saying “Amen, Amen!” to that prayer.
“We have a wider responsibility to consider all our member churches, not just England.” Who is “we”? And who are “our members”? The Church Universal is one body, to be sure. But shouldn’t a General Synod of the Church of England act in the pastoral, sacramental interests of English people? There is a duty of loyalty to the organization of which one is an officer. Has not that duty been violated here? Canterbury has a conflict of interest, due to his Communion role. Which should have caused him to recuse himself—not to urge the conflict itself as a reason for… Read more »
Has equal marriage in America and Scotland caused this? If not, it fails even on its own terms.
Even if it has, the implications of this ultimate heckler’s veto would be that *any* actions that allegedly “provoked” a mob should cease. Churches are attacked for proclaiming the gospel and welcoming converts. I’d hope no Christian would expect them to cease from those activities in the face of threats. Why then should equality be held to a different standard?
With all due respect Victoria I find your post deeply offensive. What you seem to be saying is that we should indulge bigotry and hatred. As Christians we are called upon to witness for good and oppose evil. Now we may well disagree about what is good and what is sinful but what we should never ever do is to hold our voice for fear of provoking evil people to do even worse evil. What you seem to be saying is that Jesus should not have upturned the tables of the money changers for fear of provoking retribution against his… Read more »
No we don’t. We should do what is right, not what is expedient. We don’t have a wider responsibility.
I might also add that those who adhere to beliefs in celibacy before marriage or gay people who abstain from sexual activity for the same reason have no monopoly of virtue, neither should their beliefs need upholding by denying other people the free exercise of their conscience.
The archbishops may have said this, but are they speaking out of knowledge or prejudice? Have their words been tested against evidence from a wider range of sources? And what about the huge number of LGBTQ Christians in the countries they serve. Have they been asked to comment, and what would they say.
When talking about Africa we need to be aware of power structures, and who gets to be heard, and who is silenced.
I feel sure that the contact will have been with bishops in those countries and not with LGBT groups, Christian or otherwise.
When people face peril and violence, you condemn peril and violence, not raise those same vulnerable people as a human shield against change that applies to England only. Regrettably, the threat of violence and persecution against LGBTQI+ people risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in parts of the world, even on the terms of the resolution as passed.
We have a responsibility to resist emotional blackmail and lies
Yes, this morally bankrupt line has come from ++Canterbury before. It really is a startlingly unpleasant argument, an amoral bullies’ charter repellent to the core tenets of Christianity. To see it rekindled here shows just how hollow LLF’s apologies and promises are. Truly, a whited sepulchre.
It’s straightforward gaslighting, frankly. However, the payroll fell for it, but then that is what they are supposed to do (since Synod is a stacked political playpen). It also shows that Lambeth has a pretty severe case of neo-colonial thinking: the presumption that it is the ‘head’ of a worldwide communion of ‘dependent’ (or, at any rate, psychologically dependent) churches. What seems to be the case is that these churches want to assert their ‘independence’ from Lambeth when it suits their political purposes, and also want to assert their ‘dependence’ when it suits them. Successive archbishops have proven susceptible to… Read more »
I want to echo your use of the word ‘neo-colonial’ because that’s exactly how I saw it too.
Indeed. It sounds as if Lambeth doesn’t want to upset the natives. It’s a startlingly retrograde classist, colonialist – as well as English exceptionalist – argument to make.
Anglican Francafrique really is the perfect description of this mindset. How damning it is.
This was a dreadfully low point in the debate. It was highly manipulative, gaslighting, neocolonial, morally bankrupt, all those apt terms others have already used, not to mention crude, patronising etc. Frankly, at this point is anyone surprised at these things from hierarchs in the CofE?
What I would really like to know is whether any substantial evidence has ever been put forward to back up these wildly unpleasant claims. It’s very very convenient to go on asserting this over and over but is it anything more than hot air?
At the moment it seems mostly hearsay. People told him this. He repeats it, because it serves his Communion purposes.
And in addition to everything else wrong with it, there’s a real causation problem in this argument.
E.g., I doubt there is any evidence that the years of LLF delay in the Church of England have persuaded Islamist terrorists to decide _not_ to kill or rape, when they were otherwise inclined to do so.
Thank you for this. I wasn’t paying full attention but what Justin Welby seemed to be saying was that if we vote for these prayers then ‘people will die….’ He didn’t expand on this so the synod just had to believe that what he was saying would be the reality. Of course he was able to say this and it went unchallenged. But if that was the case why would the Bishops bring forward the motion knowing that the blood would be on their hands? Personally I think that if people in other nations are minded to kill, rape and… Read more »
Celibacy can be a honourable part of Christian witness. However I found the series of young Gay Evangelicals who had decided to be celibate profoundly depressing. I defend the right of anyone to be celibate but the rejection of your God given sexuality because it is unclean doesn’t accord with my understanding of a loving God. In every other respect, our understanding of the World has evolved from what humans understood at the time of Christ. Why should sexual morality alone be stuck in the first century ?
Actually, I found some of the contributions on celibacy, the most moving and deeply honest.
One of the saddest things I’ve experienced in that regard is getting to know middle-aged former Conservative Evangelicals who dutifully abstained throughout their youth, then realised decades later what bunkum it all was, and ended up bitterly regretting having wasted chances to have formed lasting partnerships. Forcing anyone into celibacy when they are unsuited to it is a terrible thing to do, whether the person is gay or straight.
Celibacy is hard even for those of us called to it and anyone pressured into it can suffer devastating harm.
As usual, the CofE snatches defeat from the jaws of (a very weak!) victory. Here we have amendment (g) voted through – the only one to achieve that – stating that the Bishops, Synod and CofE won’t change change “the doctrine of marriage”. As any decent theologian would state, how does marriage qualify as a “doctrine” in the CofE? It is not a sacrament according to the BCP or 39 Articles. Marriage, as a state of union between a couple is blessed by the church, and hallowed as holy. But that does not make it a doctrine. Marriage, and long… Read more »
To be fair to all sides, should I now (in deference to the restated “Doctrine of the Church of England”) also refuse “Holy Matrimony” to couples of any orientation unless they first “repent” of their sin in cohabiting and indulging in naughties before the Church allows? That’s the logical outcome of this farrago of nonsense. I’ve been fighting this battle for LGBT equality for over 40 years. Thank God retirement looms. Want nothing to do with the CofE afterwards. Tony Benn, when leaving as an MP said something like “I’m leaving parliament so I can concentrate on politics”. In a… Read more »
I’m confused about the amendment. On the order paper, paragraph (g) is amendment 68, which failed. It was amendment 67 that passed.
It appears that there were two versions of the order paper, the later one deleted an earlier proposed amendment, and renumbered the following ones. I was confused too.
Ah, me too. Thank you for clearing that up.
The updated order paper is here. Paragraph (g) of the motion was added by the passage of item 67 on this order paper. None of the other proposed amendments were passed.
I couldn’t agree more. I have done so as well after suffering as a Lay Reader at the hands of the ineffective safeguarding policy in the Diocese of Europe. Am I suprised the topic of the Independent Safeguarding is being hushed up? Clearly not. All courage to you, continue in your spiritual journey with confidence.
As I’ve commented in a different thread, in response to Colin Coward’s latest article, padre, some churches, not necessarily CofE, do actually do just that. I used to be a member of one such church. Unfortunately a great many Christians do put logic and legalism before common sense and practicality!
Many thanks for making this information readily available and accessible.
What a painful business this is.
As evidenced from the fact it seems to be a victory no one wants to claim, in a battle that will be restarted first thing tomorrow morning.
A remarkable tribute to the power of the payroll vote, but then that is precisely why Synod is constituted as it is: to get things the leadership want passed under the semblance of ‘consent’, so that the fig leaf of such consent can subsequently be deployed as a pretext to smother (crush?) dissidents (it’s the same with diocesan synods). The way in which Archbishop Welby told parliament to ‘get its tanks off his lawn’ was ‘endearing’, but also a handy way of corralling any waverers amongst the payroll vote. If it was meant as a challenge, it might be one… Read more »
As I always welcome the breadth and depth of your knowledge on procedure, I’d be interested to hear more of your views on the “payroll vote.” Most bishops have risen as high as they ever will (although try telling them that!), and both they and many clergy are nigh-on unsackable, so is it social pressure that keeps ‘em in line, or perks such as honorary cathedral and diocesan posts?
Many thanks, but I wouldn’t say that I have any particular expertise in Synod, its operations, standing orders, etc. All that bores me, and it is interesting only insofar as it provides insights as to how the ‘managers’ of Synod manipulate the agenda and rules in order to get that which they want passed through each house. The sole utility of Synod, at least from an objective standpoint, is that it provides a forum in which conflicts within the Church can be thrashed out in the open. However, the risk is that it amplifies conflicts which (like LLF) are probably… Read more »
As a member of Synod with a very good knowledge of the background, opinions and motivations of my fellow members, I can assure you that your assumptions on its composition are far from the mark. Your comments on TA are usually well informed, but here you have let yourself down.
Yes, I must apologise for impugning the motives of Synod members: I have no ‘window into men’s souls’, least of those in the three houses, and it was very presumptuous and impertinent of me. The pejorative, impulsive and emotional language I have used here and in other posts has been quite unnecessary. However, I do feel that Synod is a highly flawed deliberative body (as are diocesan synods). Dr Butler has noted that it (or, rather, one of the houses) is elected on a painfully narrow basis, which seriously subverts its credibility. Moreover, its lack of control over supply, and… Read more »
The problem with internet voting is security.
Today, having a talk with my teen grandaughter …
Her words: “The Church doctrines on sexuality are nonsensical. Probably so on other subjects – I’m not interested. Fxck off!”.
What a sensible granddaughter! It is a reasonable assumption that a Church which is seen by young people to preach muddled nonsense won’t survive into the next generation.
Hard to see how this won’t simply end up in the courts after a series of cases under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963. I imagine that some people on opposite ends of the argument would like to see some test cases brought.
I am very saddened to read the negative way in which so many contributors have received the passing of this motion. No one present at Church House for the full eight hours of debate could possibly underestimate the dedication of the progressive leaders of synod groups in working together to produce this result. Those opposed to any recognition of any kind for LGBT+ relationships, those who were happy to describe them as ‘sin’, and ‘abominations’, the people who preached Jesus at us in the chamber as if we were backsliders or pagans: all of them used every procedural and rhetorical… Read more »
Jeremy,
A six year struggle since 2017. A million pounds spent on LLF. All that time and money to achieve a verdict today that could have been reversed by a mere handful of laity voting the other way.
Is this to go on for another six years. Or ten years, or however long it takes to get a Synod to approve equal marriage ?
In other words, an endless war of attrition that will leave nothing but rubble in its wake.
It’s madness. Why can we not just reach a settlement.
Settlement is shorthand here for separation. There is simply no appetite for it. This isn’t South Carolina
I can assure you categorically there is an appetite for it. The leading conservative spokesperson in England is Vaughan Roberts. Listen to his speech in direct response to the Bishop of London this morning.
Your reference to South Carolina is eccentric. This is not America
And it’s a poor example to boot. The Anglican Diocese retained 90% of the church property (after a terrible legal ordeal). Surely that is to be avoided if at all possible. Though the Anglican Diocese ‘won,’ there are no winners in this kind of affair.
As you say, the situation with an established church is an entirely different affair. One can pray for a settlement with less rancor.
It’s not just madness and waste. The whole point of the LLF process was to get to a point where there wouldn’t be a close vote but there would be some sort of consensus. The fact that so many people voted against means that LLF has, in its own terms, completely failed. Maybe there has been a step towards “equal marriage”, maybe there hasn’t, but that is not really the criterion for success of an exercise of this kind, which is supposed to bring peace, not a sword. Frankly the result is as near as you could get to a… Read more »
Sometimes when a structure is so obviously unsound reducing it to rubble may be the only option. People demanding justice will not be silenced. No-one is going to accept a patchwork CofE where some parishes are stuck in homophobic darkness in perpetuity, which is what separate provinces would seek to ensure. An inclusive church for every person in England is the only goal. The only settlement I can see working is that the regressive congregations become extra-parochial (there are surely enough buildings around to permit this). Most of them are “gathered” from well beyond their parish boundaries anyway so it… Read more »
Your totalitarianism is heart breaking
Wanting people to be safe from abuse and discrimination is not totalitarianism.
To this I would add that some in Parliament seem to regret having allowed the CofE to develop women-bishops-no-go zones. It will be interesting to see whether any equal-marriage legislation for the CofE addresses that as well.
I am very interested and encouraged to hear your reaction to this. ++Justin’s contribution yesterday moved me to tears. It did. He has been the crucible for so much of this and to hear what he said, borne out of the pain and the longing for unity was something I shall not forget in a hurry.
Well said Jeremy, and thank you
Thank you Jeremy for this really helpful contribution which echoes what I have been thinking, but failing to put into words. Half a loaf indeed, but this is a great deal more than was on offer in Feb 2017. I will be very interested to read the pastoral guidance, which I predict will contain a conscience clause and say something like ‘the norm is that sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage have been the consistent view of the Church. But we recognise that after careful consideration and prayer, others have come to a different conclusion and we are not prepared… Read more »
I’d vote for that, Andrew!
So would I Helen, but not anything less than that. It’s comparable to what Justin Welby said to the Lambeth Conference.
I assume there won’t actually be a vote because it will simply be Pastoral Guidance issued by the HofB? But I may have missed something…..
Jeremy I really sympathise with your position on this, but as I understand it absolutely nothing has changed. Given that these prayers are entirely in accordance with Canon B5, that is they introduce no change in doctrine, the only new thing introduced was a commitment to try and replace Issues in Human Sexuality (and this may fail to pass). Any priest in the Church of England could have written and used these prayers (or ones like them) any time they wanted in the same circumstances as prescribed in LLF just as we can use liturgies from other Provinces and indeed… Read more »
Agreed.
We have not moved forward, we have moved backwards.
This was possible 21 years ago, I suspect it would be impossible now.
http://www.simondawson.com/blessing/blessphot.htm
Thank you Gareth, I think you are entirely correct. Everything today is entirely consistent with GS 2055, proposed by the bishops and rejected by the Synod back in 2017, with the exception that instead of informal prayers for same-sex couples together with guidance on their content for clergy, we will be offered commended prayers – but still with the explicit requirement that these cannot be contrary to Canon B5. I am surprised that more members of Synod (as well as commentators on Thinking Anglicans) don’t refer back to GS 2055 – since, what the bishops have done is pretty much… Read more »
I would simply note that attempts to bring the replacement of “Issues” within the direct responsibility of Synod failed. Attempts to insist that the prayers were liturgical business (requiring a burdensome and time consuming, procedure) failed. And when the reports of the debate are written read what Miranda Threlfall-Holmes had to say in relation to doctrine about Marriage in history (I may add an expanded version my own, uncalled, speech – I restricted myself to two minutes – to the public domain: I am pleased that Miranda was called when I had stood to speak: I think my contribution is… Read more »
There is real progress for the following reasons: 1. Any prayers before today for a civilly married same-sex couple in a church were entirely unofficial, and exposed the priest officiating to a risk of a CDM complaint. 2. This is the first time the Church of England has said anything that publicly affirms same-sex marriages – and the first time it has made any liturgical provision for same sex couples. 3. The bishops’ response to LLF specifically does not reaffirm the ‘no sex apart from a hetero marriage’ position 4. Making blessings of same-sex married couples officially permissible will make… Read more »
Thank you Jeremy once again for this really helpful analysis.
Jeremy – thank you for this insight. I think this is in line with the Lambeth Conference. He also knows that a large majority of Anglican Provinces are relaxed about this – they knew it was coming. One Global South Primate said to me in 2009 – I don’t understand why the Church of England doe not just go ahead and bless same sex unions (no marriage in those days).
Thanks, Jeremy, important points. I very much hope too that what replaces Issues in Human Sexuality is substantially better, even if imperfect.
There needs to be a good period of reflection on all this. I caught most of the debate online. It is a watershed moment, whether it is crumbs or half a loaf. Many of us would have loved the image to have been one of crashing over the Victoria Falls on the Zambesi, but that was never going to happen. There were some great speeches. Ed Shaw was on message. Simon Friend (LGBT ally, ex-HTB) was inspiring. Loved the virgin to be married in the summer; every blessing to them both, but as ++Sentamu once said, “don’t buy the cow before tasting the milk!” The usual… Read more »
The idea everything will now revert to a sullen status quo for three years does not bear serious examination.
There is going to be turmoil.
Yes, but no capacity for material change. Planning for the brave new world perhaps.
I also agree that Jeremy Pemberton’s analysis above (also endorsed below by David Runcorn) is very helpful. If steps start now on a settlement (I am not sanguine on that point), then the long timetable towards equal marriage might be shortened, but the ConEvos will use it as a weapon to get what they want, failing which the fight will go on. They are likely to challenge the new pastoral guidance, whatever it says. That of course is fairly depressing, but I remain of the view that the 2026 elections to General Synod will be key (if only the electorate… Read more »
Nobody is weaponising anything. I am a conservative evangelical. I took early retirement and moved house to be involved in a Church of England ministry as an LLM. The diocese has four progressive bishops and I have had to leave. My public ministry is finished. In relation to my personal position, I bought the wrong house at the wrong price in the wrong place. I gave up my career. I am in my sixties. Have some common humanity, Anthony. We have all suffered and lost so much. You are an influential voice. Please bring grace to your tone and accept… Read more »
Peter, thank you for sharing. That’s the first time I have seen genuine loss articulated on the evangelical side. Firstly, I am sorry. Secondly, I think it is important showing that there is real loss on both sides of the dispute. It is time to put an end to as much of that loss as possible. I am now firmly convinced that we should abandon geographic provinces and organise instead on doctrinal grounds.
Thank you, Kate. I genuinely appreciate your sense of decency and humanity.
Peter
Well, there are ConEvos and there are ConEvos. I was one once, which might explain my zealotry as a LGBT ally. There is simply no comparison between the harm done to that community and the ‘suffering’ (really?) to traditionalists of challenge to their intellectual, theological scruples. They used to pride themselves as to their winsome ways. As to weaponising the debate, All Souls Langham Place is the latest London diocese church to declare war. It’s ugly. Yes, there needs to be a settlement. It’s more necessary now that LLF has failed to move minds, after five years and £1 million.… Read more »
If only the electorate will vote…..I have been amazed throughout my ministry how low the turnout has been in many dioceses. I simply can’t understand it. I voted in every election and encouraged my lay representatives to do so. Don’t clergy see the importance? Are their horizons solely parochial?
Are you certain? Much has been said here (and elsewhere) how disappointing yesterday was for progressives and how upsetting for the traditionalists. Less has been said about whether yesterday was a good day for the bishops. My sense is that it wasn’t. Quite the opposite in fact. I think they thought they had offered so little that it wouldn’t cause too much fuss. If that is the case, yesterday proved them mistaken. Rather than bringing the Church of England together, yesterday had the opposite effect. The same for the Anglican Communion. Then there is the thorny question of pastoral guidance.… Read more »
The few bishops I have spoken with have all said that this hasn’t solved much. But it is a watershed moment. Like Thatcher, a reform that can’t be turned by the usual socialist suspects. The pastoral guidance won’t be negotiated, but will have to come from the College, thence House, and be published. One synod stalwart wearily told me ‘we’ve got to do this all again in July.’ I’m hopeful that’s not the case. Five months is a long time in Synod politics.
Five months is a long time, but the settlement of these issues will take longer. There will be some kind of debate on this in July – whether “take note” or a substantive motion. On the conservative side, progress in negotiations, with strong implicit promises, might just hold off the procedural and technical approaches which might bring us back to the challenging debate (such as the proposals to amend standing orders that we did not get to vote on this time). But this is a Synod with a lot of new members (I am one of them, though I have… Read more »
One suspects that some of the more intelligent bishops might privately be quite happy to have Parliament solve the problem for them. And soon.
It’s bizarre. As Gareth German explained above, nothing has really changed so this ought to have bought a period of sullen calm. That was the bishops’ hope, I think.
But for conservatives, in this country and abroad, simply recognising same sex relationships as something valuable, even while not recognising them as Holy Matrimony, is incendiary. Nobody is buying the distinction between marriage and Holy Matrimony either.
I think your prediction of turmoil is likely to be accurate.
Peter you and others pushing for a separation/divorce here keep overlooking the fact that there was no appetite in the House of Bishops at all for such a move. It wasn’t even on the table and won’t be in any near future. *Some* Conservative Evangelicals will speak of it, but they clearly don’t have the votes in Synod and the only terms on which they would accept it would be to say that they were the only Anglican party in the divorce and they would never to agree to the aggrieved party being part of the Anglican Communion. It’s all… Read more »
That is simply wrong. The bishop of Guildford called for a settlement in his speech during the debate. The Archbishop of York said a settlement was needed. Listen to what they actually said
I have listened and have commented that a settlement is quite different to a separation. I’m sure all of us want the matter settled.
I don’t for one moment believe that the Archbishop of York was asking for a separation. The Bishop of Guildford might well have thought of that, but he will be amongst a very few in the House wanting that, and will not be content to leave the Anglican Communion.
On the Anglican Communion issue that will be difficult but you are wrong to assert what conservatives would or would not agree to.
It’s a settlement negotiation. We would reach a view on the whole package.
Thank you from sharing that view from the ground Jeremy. Although I used time I really didn’t have to watch the proceedings, a livestream can’t replicate the mood in the room, and I’d be overjoyed to be wrong about this.
Your voice of course carriers particular weight here, so I’ll try my best to reassess and see it in the most favorable light. If the new guidance does indeed sweep away the legacy of ‘Issues …’ and its successors, that’ll surely be the most positive sign to date.
Jeremy. I note you don’t comment on paragraph G.
I can appreciate your arguments that some gains have been made for the progressives. But what concerns me is that by Synod voting to confirm that the conservative understanding of marriage is now doctrine, that one short amendment will, in the long term, do more damage than all the gains made in the preceding paragraphs.
Were the votes against from conservatives opposing any recognition of same sex relationships or from liberals demanding equal marriage?
The former mainly I believe. I’d like to believe Jeremy’s positive prognosis but Gareth’s post outlines how little has changed. The pastoral guidance will be key, and no doubt hard fought. Peter is probably right, I can hardly imagine 5 years of calm waters ahead. I’m sticking with Team CofE for now, but it feels like we’re in extra time.
A theme that runs through a number of comments is why do conservatives need a settlement and what do progressives feel conservatives can reasonably request or expect. This is to completely misunderstand the conservative position. Conservatives want a settlement. They will offer an arrangement in which they play no further part in the conduct of business in a progressive/revisionist denomination. There will then be a set of business compromises around cash and property. That’s it. It’s a peace settlement. The question that does not arise in any settlement or peace negotiation is “I don’t see why you need that, please… Read more »
Parliament will never allow such a “settlement” (i e splitting). If, factually, such a splitting does occur, the half-church which Parliament will recognize as established will not be your half. And an established Church suits ConEvan – as a boat they fish from.
Establishment is founded on the Sovereign not Parliament. Members of Parliament cannot disestablish the Church of England.
Parliament does not “recognise” the presence or absence of Establishment. There is no such concept.
Peter: But see the Welsh Church Act 1914. That disestablished the C of E in Wales and Monmouthshire and effectively created the non-established Church in Wales. As a piece of legislation the Act is interesting in itself. I’m quite sure that few of the contributors to TA calling for disestablishment can have any idea of the legal complexities which would be involved in the case of the C of E.
Just a glimpse of the Welsh Act in its original form (much of it has been repealed) will provide a hint:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/4-5/91/enacted
Welsh Disestablishment was at least in part a nationalist issue, though not the red hot version at work today in Scotland. Also non-conformism was a key influence and had been an aspect of Welsh society for the previous century or more. There are no such parallel influences on the Church of England today. Ben Bradshaw is an elected member of Parliament and an influential figure, but we need a sense of proportion. The notion that the King, the Judiciary, the Government and the Legislature are about to embroil themselves in a national decade-long religious convulsion is delusional. It’s not going… Read more »
To be clear, I am not for one moment advocating disestablishment of the C of E, and repeat my point that I see little evidence of careful and serious thought on the part of those who do: much ‘shooting from the hip’ but little thought or understanding of all the implications. A sense of proportion is exactly what my comments on TA are aimed at!
to Peter
I’m puzzled by your reference to Scotland. As far as I know, SEC has not been an established church since maybe the 17th century.
I was referring to Scottish nationalism which is different in character to Welsh nationalism
My ecclesiastical point was that Welsh dis establishment was at least influenced by a sense of Welsh nationhood. There is no comparable influence regarding the Church of England
Thankyou – I see your point now.
The 1914 Act (prepared by Arthur Thring for Reginald McKenna) is very largely based on the Irish Act 1869 drafted by Henry Thring (Arthur’s uncle) for Gladstone: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1869/42/enacted, and it had been essayed in 1909 before the passage of the Parliament Act 1911. One of the key differences was the extent of the dis-endowment. Asquith’s bills of 1892 and 1894 envisaged much more complete disendowment than those of Herbert Gladstone or McKenna. Asquith envisaged the Church retaining only its post-1703 endowments (i.e., after the creation of the Bounty), with everything before being the ‘patrimony’ of the Welsh people. This was… Read more »
Thank you. I am 81, shortly 82 if I make it, and time is limited! I did look at the Irish Act and understood that Gladstone was a major/ the major player – rather like ‘Home Rule’ where, however, he wasn’t successful.
TA continues to be a battle ground on most fronts, it seems! Where are the peace-makers to be found?
Yes, the Irish Act was key to his prospectus for resolving the wider Irish problem. He was altogether less enthused by the prospect of Welsh disestablishment (Hawarden is in Flintshire, of course), and tried to kick it into the long grass. However, with the desertion of the Liberal Unionists after 1886 that became altogether more difficult, as Welsh nonconformist votes became relatively more important. Perry Butler (who is an expert on Gladstone) may have observations to make on this score. What I care about most of all is the parish system, which I now perceive as being under grave threat.… Read more »
My comment was, indeed, directed to those whom I perceive to advocate disestablishment out of hostility to the Church without advancing any cogent and Christian basis in their thinking.
Nonsense. What does the phrase “by law established” mean, if not by Parliament?
Parliament can only produce Bills. Only the sovereign can, by assent, create statute which is one of the two categories of law (The other category being case law derived by judicial precedent)
Kindly point me to the last time the sovereign did not rubber-stamp a bill passed by Parliament. For him not to do so would incite a constitutional crisis, would it not?
The conventions around the sovereign do not go in one direction only. He will, by convention, follow the advice of his ministers. They, by convention do not ask him to do something he thinks is against the national interest. The sovereign is perfectly entitled to take a view on the national interest. He is also perfectly entitled to carry out his duties as supreme governor of the Church of England. He would have to be convinced a Bill affecting his position as supreme governor of the church was in the national interest. Furthermore, the idea a prime minister would just… Read more »
“Furthermore, the idea a prime minister would just tell the sovereign what to do is a total nonsense. The sovereign is an immensely important person in the British state and is far more respected than prime ministers.”
More respected, perhaps, but not more powerful. Indeed, the tradition seems to be, for the past two centuries, that the sovereign does not publicly speak his/her mind on the “national interest” (or on much of anything of real substance). Therefore, we have no idea if the ministers “ask him to do something he thinks is against the national interest.”
May I come in? I know, I’m a Portuguese Catholic with a Master on Philosophy which had a minor on Religions History, mainly Christianity one, and I opted to do a semester on Anglican History. You’re true. The CofE is not established under the Parliament, but under the Sovereign, the Crown, so, now only King Charles III can by assent, or by his entitled prerogative of something that I can define as “Emergency Action” (even though it might to have other technical name) to modify statute of CofE, and even to accept your conservative purpose of conservative settlement as supreme… Read more »
MPs can disestablish the Church of England and not only disestablish it, but also disendow it. That was precisely what they did in 1914, when the Welsh Church bill was passed under the Parliament Act 1911 despite the bill having been rejected by the House of Lords (you will see in the preamble of the 1914 Act that there is no reference to the ‘Lords Spiritual and Temporal’, whilst there is a reference to the 1911 statute. Establishment is not founded upon the sovereign but upon the Acts of Supremacy 1534 and 1558: therefore, it is a creature of statute,… Read more »
You over state your case. A Bill only becomes an Act when it receives Royal Assent from the Sovereign. You will, I realise, insist the King will follow the orders of the Prime Minister but you know perfectly well it would be a constitutional crisis. Wales is not a remotely comparable precedent. Non conformism was the basis of their disestablishment. That was a society wide movement that had a century of history. There there is the small matter of the judiciary. This is no time for huffing and puffing about imaginary nightmares. There is not the slightest possibility that the… Read more »
Thank you for your views. I would note that when the Church was disestablished in Wales it commanded the loyalty of little more than 13% of the Welsh population: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rss/27-3-4_327.pdf In 2018 the Church of England was found to command the nominal loyalty of about 12% of the population (that percentage will almost certainly be lower now):https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2019/07/just-12-percent-of-brits-are-affiliated-to-c-of-e-major-survey-reveals Welsh disestablishment was justified by the Liberal party on the grounds that the Church had lost the support of the Welsh population. In what sense is the present status of the Church of England in England not comparable to that of the Church… Read more »
Conservatives want a separate province. There is a separate province in Scotland. I’m not saying they are the same. I’m just pointing out what is being requested is not a new form of space travel. It’s something perfectly conventional that exists in forty one different forms already
If the liberal position is they will not entertain a separate province because they want the King to end four centuries worth of the Elizabethian settlement, is that really credible ?
The law requires reasonable behaviour and demanding dis-establishment to avoid a new province does not meet that test.
Many thanks. Personally, I am not drawn to any party or tendency in the Church, and my advocacy of disestablishment and partial disendowment is based on other considerations (which I have explained in my response to Mr Wateridge and in a number of other posts over the last few years). Whether another province need be formed when there are already PEVs is moot, and is not something about which I have particular views. As a trivial historical aside, there was once a rather shadowy third province in England, between c. 787 and 803 when Offa made Hygeberht of Lichfield an… Read more »
I found your commentary on shielding the parish very good interesting !
“There is a separate province in Scotland.”
Umm… no there isn’t. Members of one or two congregations left the SEC but there is no separate province. The vast majority of those opposed to equal marriage (in a province comprised of Anglicans by conviction and preference rather than “best boat to fish from” expediency) were able to live with not being required to celebrate such marriages themselves. It is part of what makes me suspicious of these demands for a new province in England – it looks like posturing rather than practical necessity.
The SEC is an Anglican Province.
What are you talking about ??
I suspect what you meant to say is not “umm… no there isn’t” but rather:
“Could you clarify what you mean by separate”
The answer is I mean separate. There are forty two separate provinces including one in Scotland
I assumed you meant “separate from the SEC”, as all your talk recently, and indeed your post, has been of separate provinces within a single geographical area divided by how they treat gay people. The SEC is a separate province because it’s not and never has been part of the CofE and the ABC “hath no jurisdiction in this realm of Scotland” (to borrow a favourite phrase of Glasgow Cathedral’s Fr Kelvin). The schismatic desire for a separate province within the CofE is not remotely comparable.
You are completely misunderstanding me.
My point is setting up a province is nothing novel. It’s been done 42 times.
That’s all I am saying
Well then what you’re saying is both technically incorrect and completely irrelevant. Many of the “provinces” of the Anglican Communion are pre-existing particular churches, there is no question of “setting up” a province in the case of the SEC and many others, it’s recognising an existing self-governing church as part of the Anglican Communion. Where a province has been “set up” it’s been where secular political independence has made ecclesiastical dependence on Canterbury, and ultimately Westminster, unpalatable.
“Setting up” is part of the universally used general vernacular. It is perfectly obvious what I am saying.
You wan to treat the term as a technically specific term which I have mis used. It’s nothing if the sort.
You seem to be saying that setting up a perpetual safe space for homophobia and misogyny within the CofE is the same as the particular Anglican churches in different parts of the world governing themselves. As that’s obviously nonsense I’m hoping you might clarify with something that makes a bit more sense.
I’m saying nothing of the sort.
Jo, can you not engage with me on the basis I’m a normal person ?
I have two daughters. I came to faith through a same sex attracted person.
I hold to the historic view of gender and marriage. That does not make me a monster
I’m engaging with you on the basis of what you have said. If your views and demands appear monstrous that’s something you maybe need to give some thought to.
Your are obviously twisting my words to mean the very opposite of my plain meaning.
You are attributing monstrous sentiments to me.
You should stop it
I think you should both stop it.
Jo B wrote:You seem to be saying that setting up a perpetual safe space for homophobia and misogyny within the CofE is the same as the particular Anglican churches in different parts of the world governing themselves.
If instead, he had said: You seem to be saying that setting up an additional provincial structure within England is the same as the particular Anglican churches in different parts of the world governing themselves
presumably Peter would not have objected.
Of course, Simon, though I think your “six of one and half a dozen of the other” sentiment is unfair.
I have not attributed reprehensible sentiment to anybody. I am saying conservatives need a separate province, which is both true and conveys no moral condemnation of anybody
Casting round misogyny smears is out of order, Simon. I have daughters.
You genuinely don’t get it, do you? You really don’t see how demanding a space to continue making gay and/or female Christians second class might look as close to misogyny and homophobia as makes no difference. I don’t doubt your sincerity or your good intentions, and in many ways I admire your willingness to seek a way forward, but your insistence on the “need” for a separate province is hard to read as anything other than treating those of us who affirm the full status of women and LGBT people as beyond the pale and somehow a danger to conservatives.… Read more »
There can be a point in a relationship where people need to walk apart. It is always in some profound sense a failure. It is always going to be agony and the longer and the deeper the history of the relationship the more pain and loss and waste there will be. It can even be the case that the relationship has reached the point where there is nothing left to explain. None of this means that the fundamental dignity of both parties is diminished in any way. You are made in the image of the living God. How could I… Read more »
Oh dear. Just as an exercise, imagine this comment transposed to the conservative side, and the reaction from a liberal being told that their needs were “beyond the pale”. I hope the response would be as gracious as that from the person whom you accuse of not getting it.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say other than that you think it’s ok to promote discrimination so long as you do so politely.
I’m saying that a good way of testing the offensiveness of a comment is to imagine it being transposed to the opposite side of the argument, and further that the “beyond the pale” comment fails that test.
I’ll repeat my earlier comment. Please will you both stop.
Sorry, Palmer stood aside from the government in 1868-69: Gladstone was advised by Collier.
Correction: “The Crown in Parliament”.
Right?
Note that, in practice, this means “Parliament”.
Being a continental, I’m not very attentive to such fine points of British constitutional conventions. I apologise.
Another Portuguese here? Great! While I’m not an expert, let me to just give you an approximate figure from what I know: Basically the CofE is an independent body on the UK state governed by it own hierarchy on top of it is the Crown. Any modification to its statutes, canons, etc. need the Crown’s signature in the form of an assent, or in the form of a direct action from the Crown in some times. The Parliament’s role there, as far as I know would be just to authorize the Crown to action, or to pass legislation, that if… Read more »
“The Parliament’s role there, as far as I know would be just to authorize the Crown to action, or to pass legislation, that if with Crown’s assent would become an Act. Parliament may have a say, but not automatic. Hope to have helped a little bit.”
As I keep pointing out, it might as well be automatic. It is more than 200 years since the sovereign last refused assent to a law passed by Parliament. To do so now would precipitate a constitutional crisis far more encompassing than the abdication of Edward VIII.
Parliament does not authorise the sovereign.
Nuno does not understand the British constitution.
There is simply no connection between reality and the constitutional claims that you are making or repeating.
“Parliament does not authorise the sovereign.”
Really? Then why is there a Succession Act (passed by Parliament) that determines who will be sovereign and in what order? (Most recently amended to end the practice of male primogeniture, so that Princess Charlotte precedes her younger brother Louis in the succession.)
Peter you don’t reckon with a key question in all of this. Which party in the separation would be part of the Anglican Communion? Because both will want that..
Are you happy that the Conservatives would not be part of the Communion in the way that ACNA are not part of the Communion?
I agree that is a very very difficult issue. So is the question of what happens to pensions. And the question of the parochial system. And the question of PCCs. The list goes on and on.
Where does listing difficult questions get us, Andrew ?
Conservatives will not participate in the new dispensation that began yesterday morning in Westminster. It is that simple.
We want a negotiated settlement.
Just insisting that cannot happen is a recipe for chaos. Please believe me for all our sakes.
Peter you didn’t quite answer the question there.
Are you happy that the Conservatives would not be part of the Communion in the way that ACNA are not part of the Communion?
or I suppose we also ought to ask
would you be happy to be in the Communion with the liberal CofE?
I gave you a precise answer that could not be clearer. It will be a negotiation. A conclusion will have to be reached on the general settlement.
I don’t think either pensions or the Anglican Communion would be the biggest issue. I think that would be church schools.
I’m sorry, I don’t get what this “new dispensation” is. Conservatives (and everyone else) have been told that they don’t have to use the new prayers – they are there for those who wish to use them but ministers who can’t use them in good conscience will have their consciences respected. There is no change in the doctrine of marriage. That’s been written in to the motion that was passed. There is already alternative episcopal oversight for people who don’t accept women priests, and I am guessing the bishop of Ebbsfleet is not going to be blessing gay couples any… Read more »
I suggest you visit Anglican Mainstream and read the notifications as to what is now going to happen.
The roof is about to collapse. I am not ignoring the fact you don’t see why that should happen.
I am just saying reality is the final verdict on our beliefs.
You are in a new dispensation whether you think that should be the case or not.
I have to say that I can see why conservatives might be angry today. They are in pain. It’s not for us liberals to tell them that they shouldn’t be in pain – what type of pastoral care is that? They are in pain – they shouldn’t have to explain or justify that. We, the whole church, need to do something about that. Yes, it will be complicated. Yes, it will be costly, but we should give them what they need to heal. I know they haven’t done it for us over same sex relationships. Nor has it been done… Read more »
Kate, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your words.
I am certain conservatives should and, for the most part, will seek mutuality and generosity of spirit to the maximum degree.
I am not avoiding the fact we will be walking apart but we can and must be seek to be good neighbours.
Andrew, that presupposes that the Anglican Communion stays united in its present form. After yesterday, I think that unlikely.
Well, what do we read in Mt Ch 12 about a house divided cannot stand. I know I am not alone in finding the whole debate on SSM incredibly debilitating on both sides. If all the angst, speeches, keyboard warriors and energy was channeled into something more positively how much more could the kingdom be extended. Simple truth, the CofE is deeply divided over this and will be for the foreseeable. LLF has not changed many minds, perhaps made some folk more understanding of the other point of view. But the situation remains, unity and holding together would be great… Read more »
Hi! I’m not an UK citizen, nor an Anglican myself, just a Thinking Roman Catholic interested on Ecumenism whom has had some nice Anglican friends and colleagues. That said; I’m saddened with all those results in CofE, lately. Sadly those, JIMHO, sexually badly resolved whom hijacked Christianity’s leadership on the last 50 years are now trying to forbid the rest of us to accept that the world has changed, and to accept that the Church should to focus on the good news of salvation Jesus has given us and forget whatever else goes in each one’s bed, especially on matters… Read more »
A very fair point and thank you for your ecumenical perspective. It’s sad, but unfair to all to carry on with all this infighting. I think you are correct too about what the future might hold for the RC Church though a split papacy would be challenging prospect. Anglicanism is more structurally suited to a loose federal model, which is in fact how it mostly operates!
True! Many thanks to your kind words! Actually, at my integrated Master on Philosophy with a minor on Religious History. As part of the program, I had a full semester dedicated to the British Reformation, so I understand what you’re telling. The prospects for my own RCC are not that great either. Here where I live pretty much only the 75+ years old go to Mass regularly. That on itself gives you the picture. And pretty much every other day there is another pedophile priest being discovered. It is sad. With time I became ready to see Anglicanism as “that”… Read more »
Christianity is the sole great religion based on Incarnation, God taking human flesh and bones, human joys and pains. One would expect it to be the most open to the human fullfilment of sexual intimacy. Unhappily, it took the other way round: an endless string of rules about
When?/How?/Whom with?/What pourpose?
This is a perversion.
You’re absolutely right there! One of the worst faults of Anglicanism (or perhaps any large denomination), I am afraid, is that its positive sense of doing things in good order and decently can be turned into a Pharisaical obsession with rules and regulations. It’s strange, isn’t it, given that Jesus most often railed against precisely those people, the Pharisees? For me, any form of Christianity that is fit for the 21st century is going to have to clearly stamp out that tendency towards Pharisaism, which non-Christians can spot a mile off, rather than allowing the Pharisees to continue ruling the… Read more »
While I completely agree with what you are saying, especially that Jesus focused more on the spirit of the law than anything else, and am on the side of supporting same-sex marriage, coming from growing up Protestant to now a more Jewish perspective (note, I haven’t converted yet), I would kindly ask that we not call this Pharisaism. The Pharisees were not so different from Jesus himself, that’s why he had a lot of arguments with them, and the charge of the Pharisees being very legalistic is I think unwarranted given the one-sided perspective on the Pharisees coming from the… Read more »
I left the C of E in 2009, but followed this debate for a few years. I am not surprised to find that nothing has changed. The Dear Leader’s arguments are exactly as they were 14 years ago. What has changed is that the church in this country is now so massively irrelevant that no one cares anymore?
Things have changed actually. Helpfully summarised above by Jeremy Pemberton.
’Actually’ they haven’t. The LGB community has been thrown a few calming crumbs and assurances of how much we all love them, and no doubt another five year meaningless commission is already been set up, an LLF2. The only thing that seems to have changed in the last ten years are the views of Jeremy Pemberton, who seems to have become an admirer of Justin Welby!
Er…that would be overstating the case.
As an observer from the South Pacific (ACANZP), which Province of the ACC has already authorised a Blessing of S/S Married or Civilly-partnered couples; I have to agree with both Jeremy Pemberton and Andrew Godsall who express their appreciation of the motion now passed by your General Synod, Although this may not have pleased the proponents of ‘nothing less that S/S Marriage’ in the C. of E., the motion has at least broken the fallacy of a view of homosexuality as ‘demonic’ and against the authentic ‘teaching of The Church’ – which has haunted the LGBTQI community within the Church… Read more »
There is already a way that same sex couples can get married in an Anglican Church if they are prepared to hop on an easyJet flight to Glasgow. St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow is prepared to accept applications from same sex Church of England couples. So maybe a practical solution is to have a church wedding in Scotland and have your Christian Wedding blessed in your local Church of England Church so your congregation can celebrate your Christian Marriage ? I think this is a situation where a bit of personal protest could have an effect on the reactionary English… Read more »
Glasgow… the Gretna Green of the 21st century?
I agree that the prospect is practical. And in the best literary tradition, of course. People might even enjoy the whiff of scandal.
Sometimes the best way to cause change is to embarrass power.
David it would be better for the environment if they took the train, though planning a wedding around strike days would be nerve wracking. I think that you’re highlighting a highly effective interim solution to this dreadful mess. The wedding would be an Anglican one and the subsequent blessing for all its carefully chosen words would be seen by Joe and Josephine Public as the English version of the Scottish rite. With a hundred or so Anglican couples celebrating their Anglican nuptials in a cathedral in the United Kingdom, the CofE is increasingly presented with a fait accompli. The sky… Read more »
I have read many of the illuminating remarks here with interest. I note that for some LLF represents progress, whilst for others it is reminiscent of Una Kroll’s memorable evocation of Matt. 7:8 in 1978: “we asked for bread and you gave us stone!” In other words, this is not really ‘half a loaf’: there is something much harder under the crust. Indeed, it is more a fudge which is intended to buy off all parties by leaving them equally dissatisfied. If all parties feel cheated (assuming the bench have thought of it in game theory terms) they will want… Read more »
Matt 7:9, sorry. One of the other things which struck me, in view of the references to other provinces, notably in Africa, is that in the second half of the 1980s Synod devoted a considerable amount of attention to the burgeoning ‘third world debt crisis and especially its impact on Africa. From about 1987 onwards post-service coffee started to be of the ‘fair trade’ variety (fair trade having a rather different meaning to the identical slogan of 80 years earlier). Indeed, it followed womens’ ordination and apartheid as being one of the most conspicuous topics of the time. Essentially, following… Read more »
The Church of England needs some pretty radical changes to deal with the financial implications of falling attendance., but those changes are likely to be politically unachievable until things are really falling apart. Isn’t it possible that some in power may realise that a ‘settlement’ over same sex marriage (or more broadly a progressive/orthodox split) could give cover to make those necessary but unpalatable changes in the much nearer future?
To be honest I am amazed that this has actually passed. We’d been told for years, no matter the Archbishop’s call for “radical inclusion”, that the LLF process would not change anything at all. I certainly had no expectations as the Church has consistently delivered nothing for us. Anyone who was expecting to go from condemnation of all same sex relationships to equal marriage in Church thanks to LLF or anything coming out of Synod or Lambeth Palace were naive. The powers that be only care about keeping the creaking CofE up and running. Numerical growth and money (the only… Read more »
To those who think this is nothing, or even worse than nothing, may I draw your attention to the CEEC press release
https://twitter.com/ceecuk/status/1623711634530107392?t=FZQtzwQmirg4pD3DwhInaw&s=19
For them, this is change that has gone too far. They can be reasonably taken as representing their part of the church.
I don’t think it can be claimed the conservative position is clandestine !
If people have not understood the seriousness with which conservatives view yesterday’s developments, it is not for want of notice from conservatives.
Jeremy could you explain exactly what you think has changed by the motion? Is it indicative of a new direction? A small step on a process? A slight tweak in doctrine? Or just that some prayers that could have been prayed already will now explicitly be allowed to be prayed? I’m really struggling to see what all the fuss is about on the more conservative side. Perhaps it is bigger than I thought. But all of this seems so much about emotional feeling than actual legislative change at the moment. Sorry just trying to understand this.
See my two lengthy earlier interventions where I spell it out
Thanks for that link, it‘s indeed a strong reaction.
Its call for “imaginative new structures” is striking, and may at last offer a way to enshrine equal marriage in the sacramental life of the church while respecting the consciences of those who disagree.
There is much breezy talk about disestablishment and the fact the King will have to do as he is told if MPs decide to give him some such orders. The King is not just anybody. The church of which he is supreme governor is today subject to worldwide condemnation as a church of false teachers. Whatever you think about that, we cannot live in a world of make believe. The King will be absolutely horrified. The idea he will just do whatever MPs tell him to do is absurd. He and Parliament will insist the Church of England puts its… Read more »
Peter, you may wish to gauge the mood in the Commons by reading the transcript of the Urgent Question on 24 January here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-01-24/debates/46921D78-FB26-44A3-81F1-013530CC7C6D/EqualMarriageChurchOfEngland
I do not dispute your analysis of the mood in the Commons at all, Jeremy.
I am saying if a couple divorce the best answer is a mediated settlement and not court orders and intervention by judicial action.
Furthermore that is what the constitutional authorities (however you construe them) are certain to say.
I don’t think the divorce metaphor will work here.
Parliament will address the matter in a way that will not require any court order or judicial action.
Labour and the Lib Dems would love equal marriage to be a general-election issue. And the Tories are smart enough to want to take it off the table for the next campaign.
Hence the impending cross-party effort.
The House of Commons has risen for its February recess. But Private Members’ Bills are scheduled for the first week back, Friday 24 February.
I agree with you that a private members bill on the issue is a possibility. I’m not saying back bench MPs are inconsequential.
You are jumping ahead a long long way to see such a Bill becoming law.
Also, I cannot see what difference it would make anyway.
The doctrine of the church will not be changed by a private members Bill. Nor will the authority or stance of Bishops. Or the basic shape of the conflict.
The problems are all still there, Jeremy. In the end the church will have to sort them out itself
Given that the king is a divorcee married to a divorcee (and married in a registry office, at that), I suspect he inwardly cares not a fig what the Church of England has to say about marriage (no matter what his legal title might be). Oh, and who precisely makes up this “worldwide condemnation” about “false teachers”? The Anglican Bishops of the Global South? Because I sincerely doubt that the millions and billions of Muslims, Buddhists, and Taoists around the globe–not to mention the Roman Catholics, Mormons, and mainstream Protestants, or the very high percentage of people with no real… Read more »
The Elizabethan settlement was put in place by his direct ancestors and has served his Country for four centuries.
I have been listening to him for the last fifty years. I can assure he will not dis-establish the Church of England without checking if there is an alternative
“The Elizabethan settlement was put in place by his direct ancestors and has served his Country for four centuries.”
Check your history. As Elizabeth I died childless, she (and therefore no member of the Tudor family) is a direct ancestor of the current sovereign.
The Elizabethan settlement (the term I actually used) is a historical category statement with both a specific context – the relevant statutes – and also a valid meaning in general association with a historical epoch.
English Protestantism is founded on and associated with the Elizabethan settlement. Our present King’s direct ancestors were party to the settlement and its maintenance.
Your are, no doubt unintentionally, confusing the general historic category and one individual
You seem to know His Majesty very well Peter. With so many gay friends and courtiers I would have thought that he might be rather more sympathetic to Parliament’s desires on this subject than you claim.
All I said was I have been listening to him for fifty years. It’s a perfectly fair point to make. He is not a mysterious figure. We all know him.
I entirely agree with you that he is a sympathetic man. The point is not complicated.
If there is a workable alternative to dis establishment he will expect it to be explored.
Are you seriously suggesting he will just dismantle the Elizabethan settlement of four centuries without asking a few questions first ??
The Elizabethan Settlement was replaced in 1662 and there have been many subsequent developments in the 19and 20th C which have profoundly affected what is actually left of Establishment ( in practice not much). I cannot understand why we have suddenly jumped from the recent vote to the King and disestablishment. Let’s concentrate on the immediate effects and how large a proportion of C of E parishes are going to be affected .I suspect Cons Evos will move in different directions. Some ordinands will leave, younger clergy too perhaps. Some parishes are already under a complementarian. bishop. Some clergy will… Read more »
I would quibble over the idea the Elizabethan Settlement should be viewed as having ceased from from 1662, but I see your point.
I entirely agree with you that Dis establishment and the King are red herrings, but they come up repeatedly as solutions !
Conservatives want and need visible differentiation. Will that be “a hard structure”. Who knows. It will have to be visible and it will have to be differentiation. That is absolutely the conservative position.
The Elizabethan Settlement was political and juridical . It reestablished the Royal Supremacy and re=established Edward VI’s second Prayer Book .It lacked anything regarding the C of E’s theological stance unlike Lutheran and other more confessional churches until the 39 Articles came along, a very moderate and in places ambiguous statement of Protestant belief, which the Queen actually resisted as she did any attempts to alter her “Settlement”. The Articles applied on to the clergy, they were not bound into the BCP til the !8c. 1662 added the requirement for episcopal ordination thus creating historic dissent. I honestly can’t see… Read more »
Do you mind telling me why you assume I know nothing about the Elizabethan settlement. I have never at any point said I think history is about to repeat itself. Not once. You have invented a fictitious and ignorant dragon so you can slay it. I made a narrow and perfectly reasonable point. The sovereign is by nature conservative not radical. He will not end a four hundred year epoch of church history without care or thought. (Please do not now explain to me why it’s not actually four hundred years. I know it’s not exactly four hundred years). The… Read more »
Actually Perry, my first response to your post is too defensive. You are offering an interesting set of comments which I should have accepted at face value.
I am, to be frank, punch drunk from the relentless and generally hostile tone I encounter from commentators here – with some notable exceptions.
However that is no excuse and I should not have treated your comments as hostile
Bon courage.
May I come in? When there were the discussions on women’s ordination and women’s Bishop installation on the CofE those subjects were resolved over relatively “bargain” concessions to the dissidents, even though most of them are the same ones now opposing the LFF resolutions. Now the subject over sexuality, which will ultimately to be larger than just homosexuality, is of course at another level, but there is a difference that makes all the difference and that has not been discussed here: While during all those times there was a lovely queen Elizabeth II in the Crown whom was indeed for… Read more »
Dear Nuno, it was salutary for me to realise how widely respected Queen Elizabeth II was around the world. She was incredibly wise and very human; we were blessed. I agree that the ConEvos have an exaggerated view of their influence and importance; a separation or settlement will not serve them well. May God bless you and your Christian community.
Many thanks to the kind words, dear Fr Dean! Yeah; Queen Elisabeth II was seen as quite an heroine here at this side of the pond. For you to have an idea, here where I live in Lisbon, all the ones whom were in age of reason in 1957 very well remember that 18 February when Her Majesty visited Portugal! My 84 years old mother many times remembers that day as one of the most beautiful moments in her life when she went to the street to see Her Majesty while she crossed the City!… As regarding those ConEvos, I… Read more »
The King may have such reserved powers, but theoretically, he has the power to veto bills, sack his ministers at-will, and call elections whenever the mood takes him. Enjoyable theatrical fantasies aside, as a constitutional sovereign, he instead acts within constitutional conventions. The days of independent royal power didn’t survive the 17th century: even Queen Victoria signed off on disestablishing the Irish church.
You think he will end the Elizabethan settlement with asking a few questions first. Seriously ?
If presented with legislation passed by Parliament that disestablishes the Church of England, of course the King will sign it.
And he might be happy to do so–he himself has said that he seeks to be not the Defender of the Faith, but the Defender of Faith, by which he means all faiths.
But I don’t think disestablishment is how this Parliament will address the situation.
It would be an abuse of the constitution to remove the Sovereign from the role of supreme governor of the church of england against his will. There is no precedent at all for such an action.
It would without doubt be subject to judicial review.
The idea it would just sail through as routine legislation is wrong
If he assents to it, how would we know it is “against his will”? He is constitutionally and traditionally prevented from speaking publicly on matters before Parliament.
Of course not; I expect the King would be involved at every step. I just don’t see him activating reserve powers over the issue, anymore than Queen Victoria did over Irish disestablishment, or George V did over Welsh disestablishment.
Anything is possible and dis establishment could happen. My complaint is against the shallow analysis and fever dreams on this site which treat it as something that just the MPs would decide. The Courts and the Sovereign would be at the centre of such a process. The reason that matters is that the law requires parties to behave reasonably. There is the opportunity for a mediated settlement. If that opportunity is spurned even to the extent of people refusing to enter discussion, the Courts will not solve the problem for them. If you are in a dispute and the other… Read more »
Earlier today I was involved in a discussion with a group of young people (well-informed and well-educated in a church-related environment). Generally, they thought that the Church of England (which they see as utterly irrelevant to most of their peers) has begun to catch up with them. The two comments that stuck with me were: We sing ‘ubi caritas…’ – ‘where there is love, God is there’. Why can’t the Church just believe what it sings? In a debate about what parliament might do spoke about the position of the king in relation to parliament elucidating the parliamentary principle that… Read more »
We know the King. He is a careful and cautious man. The idea he will disestablish the church without asking a few questions is not plausible.
On your point about Parliament blocking everything you are making some big assumptions. In particular you ignore the courts. There are tens of thousands of property rights across the Church of England. They would be protected by the courts. Parliament cannot just disregard all of these rights and in practice will not do so.
It may be worth quoting Art. 1 of Part II of Sch. 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to… Read more »
It is the property rights that I am particularly confused by. All benefice property (essentially almost all parish churches and most vicarages) is held in trust for the whole parish (not just those who attend that church). This was tested with the introduction of Common Tenure. Given this is why I cannot see parliament, especially given the mood portrayed in such debate as there has been, legislating to transfer the property rights of ownership to a smaller group of people. (Taking Froghole’s point below, it is only when a church is declared redundant and therefore it has been proven that… Read more »
Property vested in trustees cannot just be expropriated by the state !
Vast amounts of church assets and property are vested in trustees.
The idea MPs can just take over all the assets and dish them out as they wish is a fiction
But parish property is held in trust on behalf of the whole parish – so the trustees have to act in the interests not just of the congregation or attendees, but also of anyone who lives in the parish. This is something of a legal conundrum that I have not seen addressed yet – that if different parishes offered different provision with regard to marriage, then the trustees would be acting to restrict the rights of some of those who should be beneficiaries of the trust. The situation regarding marriage differs from that regarding men/women clergy. In the case there… Read more »
Competing interests between beneficiaries are resolved through the courts and on the basis of the facts and presented pleas. (I say always, they can also be largely settled by mediation). The only part the legislators can play is to pass new general laws and even these would have limited impact in retrospect. A trustee is a defined office. MPs are not de facto trustees of anything because they are MPs It really is a hiding to nothing to think the cash can be taken away on the grounds of some form of general social justice claim. (I’m not trying to… Read more »
On your point about trustees, they are required to act reasonably and with the same standard of diligence which they would bring to bear in regard to their own affairs. They must avoid conflicts of interest. They must take expert advice as needed.
It is not a duty of trustees to resolve conflicts in public policy or conflicts arising from inconsistency in the behaviour of other parties.
The dilemmas you describe are obviously genuine but that does not mean those who hold the office of trustee in regard to church assets must resolve them.
Peter, I think you have helped me get to the point that has been troubling me. Much of my experience of trusteeship and charity governance has been beyond the Church (though quite a bit within it as well). In a non-Church charity I am dealing with a very similar situation – where there seem to have been competing demands on the trustees. In that case we went back to the beginning and worked through beneficial interest and came to a conclusion that satisfied the Charity Commission. If I were to apply the same process in this scenario then it seems… Read more »
The general management of our charities would be greatly helped if all trustees gave their functions the same level of care and diligence which you are bringing to the matter.
I wish you well in your endeavour
If only. The state effectively expropriated the rights of freeholders, some of them charities, by leasehold reform, and explicitly expropriated reversionary rights by the Reverter of Sites Act 1987.
The instances you quote did not take place outside due process. The parties will have been free to consider seeking legal remedy.
That is the position in relation to assets held by trustees in relation to the Church of England as I have stated.
You are confused in your analysis.
The “due process” was indeed followed: that process being the acts of parliament that expropriated those rights. I was at the time a trustee of one of the charities affected, which did take legal advice: that advice was that there was no remedy.
I’m confident that if you took legal advice you got more than a four worded letter in reply. You are giving me your opinion of what the advice meant.
Oddly enough, your opinion is consistent with your general claim.
It’s what they call an executive summary, and I’m pretty sure that my fellow trustees had the same opinion. I don’t see why it would be considered odd that an opinion based on the facts of the matter would be consistent with the claimed facts. But I doubt there’s any point pursuing the matter further, since the question is, so far, hypothetical as far as disestablishment is concerned.
Your right.
I appreciate a comment you have made on another thread in regard to a bruising set of exchanges I have had with Jo B
I have not always been gracious in comment to you for which I owe you an apology.
Peter
To amend words attributed to an earlier monarch, ‘who will rid me of this turbulent church?’ As has been observed, this king is divorced and remarried and so have been predecessors and many in the CofE today, including in the House of Bishops. Not so much seeing through a glass darkly as past a plank. A previous king suffered death at the hands of a previous parliament. Previous Puritanicals and other dissidents left this septic isle for the then colonies. The Church of Empire continues. I cannot see parliament wishing to spend years as with Brexit seeking to unpick laws… Read more »
For those thinking about Charles’s vetoing a disestablishment bill, you might consider Mike Bartlett’s 2014 play “King Charles III,” in which King Charles refuses to give assent to a bill duly passed by Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(play)
Spoiler alert: Charles’s career as king doesn’t go well at all.
When the Con/Evo Dioceses of Sydney and Tasmania made representation in New Zealand before our government decided to legalise S/S/ Marriage – in the hope of persuading our bishops of ACANZP to strongly oppose the upcoming legislation – they failed to make a case here. Subsequently, the archbishop of Sydney and the bishop of Tasmania went ahead with supporting the formation of a rival Gafcon-related ‘Anglican Church’ in Aotearoa/NZ arriving in Christchurch to assist in the ordination of its first bishop, whose chief Ordinator was the Chair of Gafcon and archbishop of ACNA, Foley Beach. This is what other dissidents… Read more »
SE Turkey and N Syria are in trashed desolation. The Ukraine is struggling against cruel invasion. The energy crisis drives too many of our own citizens to desperation and poverty….and so on. And there are 297 comments about whether people who love each other can express that love and have the love hallowed by the God of love so that they may live together for the mutual society help and affection that the one ought to have of the other both in prosperity and adversity. It amazes me that it is even a question in 2023 But then it it… Read more »
Dear Struggling Anglican
I am another one and with you all the way.
The current talk of outside forces
( presumably in pseudo parental positions?) sorting this out and on another thread about a ‘mediated settlement’ ie split from contributors whose posts make it clear they are unlikely to give an inch to allow even the most skilled mediator to achieve anything fills me with despair
We cannot be proud of this moment