Updated Thursday and again Friday
An additional General Synod document has been published today: GS Misc 1339 (Prayers of Love and Faith: a note from the Legal Office).
Update this post from Law & Rellgion UK helpfully brings together on one page the two items on LFF from the Legal Office.
The BBC radio programme Sunday interviewed the Archbishop of York. You can listen to the interview (starts at 37 min 31 sec) or read this transcript.
In the House of Commons yesterday, 24 January, Ben Bradshaw asked an Urgent Question to the Second Church Estates Commisioner:
To ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of Church of England bishops on Equal Marriage in the Church of England
There is a video recording of the debate here, and the Hansard transcript is over here.
Update On Thursday, while answering Questions, he issued this clarification of his earlier remarks:
With you permission, Mr Speaker, following my response to the urgent question on Tuesday, the advice I was given then was by the Church legal office, and I was yesterday asked to make a small clarification. A simple majority in each of the three Houses of the General Synod could suffice to pass a measure and amending canon to change the definition of marriage in ecclesiastical law, but circumstances could also arise in which two-thirds majorities in the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy would be needed, and, as with all authorised forms of service, a two-thirds majority in each House would be required for the approval of the Synod as a form of service for the marriage of a same-sex couple. I apologise, Mr Speaker, but I was only informed yesterday. Given that I was answering questions today, I thought you would find it acceptable that I put that slight clarification on the record.
Christopher Landau has written, at Psephizo, Good disagreement? This isn’t it.
Ruth Harley has written Wrestling for a Blessing in a Time of “Theological Nonsense”.
Church Times news reports:
Update
The full text of the statement from the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches is available here. The Church of England has issued this press release in response: Statement from the Church of England regarding GSFA statement.
Friday updates
Two opinion articles in the Church Times:
The Church Times article says of Archbishop Welby: ‘He said that he had publicly rebuked the Archbishop of Uganda, Dr Samuel Stephen Kaziimba Mugalu, for comments last month in which he said that LGBTQ+ campaigners were “recruiting children into homosexuality” and suggested it would be better for them to be drowned.’ The Archbishop seems to be proud of the fact that he “publicly rebuked” this person. If Mr Mugalu had made public remarks of this sort in this country, I would expect him to be reported to the police. At the very least, Welby should suspend Mugalu from the Anglican… Read more »
The ABC has no power to ‘discipline’ any other bishop in the Communion. We can only operate by moral authority and persuasion.
In which case, a public rebuke is about all that the ABC can do. Whether Archbishop Mugulu gives the rebuke any thought whatsoever is another matter entirely.
That doesn’t work, does it? Otherwise GAFCON wouldn’t exist.
Yes agreed – but I don’t think I want the ABC to have such powers (unless he only uses them in ways I approve of!)
Probably the alleged LGBTQ+ (although I seriously doubt Archbishop Mugalu used that term, considering his attitude) campaigners
Maybe Uganda is different, but I’m bi, and I don’t remember any recruiters inviting me to join the bi community. I certainly didn’t get any signing bonus or other benefits.
Archbishop Dr Samuel Stephen Kaziimba Mugalu is reported to have said:- “To those who are recruiting children into homosexuality, I want to sound a very strong warning to you. These are not my words, but the words of Jesus: ‘If anyone causes one of these little ones…to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea,” The same Bible Verse was used by CEEC in their ‘The Beautiful Story’ video, at the end of the section ‘Harmful Implications’ (see section 22.19 to… Read more »
I suggest that TA readers read the whole of Dr Mugalu’s address here . The phrase ‘it would be better for them to be drowned’ is only used in repeating our Lords own warnings in Matt18.6 & Mark9.42
I’m aware that few TA readers will agree that this is in any way an appropriate application of Jesus teaching. However ‘Very Angry’s selective quotation from Dr Mugala’s address really does not do justice to what Dr Mugalu was and wasn’t saying
I read GS Misc 1339, and Ruth Harley, and thought how right Ruth is! Feels like a new Dickensian Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce.
The item on BBC 4 Sunday (22.01.23) immediately before the Archbishop of York’s interview, to which his joke refers, is also worth a listen — about whether ChatGPT can write a sermon. Starts about 28m30s.
Ruth Harley’s piece is magnificent, a wonderful reminder of the messiness of lived reality in the midst of our striving for perfection. Thank you Ruth. As much as I would prefer things to be black and white and exactly lined up, this is not what we shall receive on this side of heaven, even at the Lord’s Table where the sacrament is a provisional stand-in for the fullness of eternal life. Meanwhile it has always struck me how proximate was the civil marriage and church blessing for Charles and Camilla, and the introduction of civil partnerships then marriage for same-sex… Read more »
GS Misc 1339 is damning: the prayers are legal iff those involved do not consider a same sex couple’s marriage to be a true marriage. How can that possibly be regarded as a solution acceptable to LGBT Christians and our allies?
Indeed, one could argue from the legal advice that any couple receiving such prayers has impliedly accepted that they aren’t truly married. Just horrible.
It is an interesting document, and Kate’s point of view is one that I had not considered before. I think the meat of GS Misc 1339 is in paragraph 6 where it refers to there being two different things, both referred to as marriage. Para 5 notes that Holy Matrimony also confers the status of civil marriage, and I would especially take from the end of that paragraph: there is a good case for saying that the institution of Holy Matrimony and the institution of civil marriage are now distinct, even though the legal incidents are generally the same for… Read more »
I understand why your suggestion is attractive. I think in the past I may even have suggested it myself in the past.
Upon reflection, however, the only effect is to inconvenience some straight couples. It would have zero effect on same sex couples because blessings using the term “marriage” would still be withheld.
I agree entirely with Kate. What the bishops have proposed only works if there is a clear divide between Holy Matrimony and civil marriage. And who really believes that can hold? The lawyers have hardly helped. The idea that there is no explicit change of doctrine may be technically correct, but to say it is not an implicit change is nonsense on stilts: “For someone who wants their partnership blessed in church, it will be possible” – Bishop of London at the press conference. So if even the bishop leading the process can’t distinguish between blessing the people and blessing… Read more »
Having watched the Urgent Question in the House of Commons, my sense is that Parliament’s patience with the CofE dragging its heels on equal marriage is running out. Synod’s delegated powers on this issue may be under review by Parliament.
Parliament may very well rattle the Church of England’s cage, and could in theory go nuclear by removing the quadruple lock itself (and the attendant internal stuff), but I think it unlikely. However, in the light of all this manufactured legal and doctrinal stuff about the difference between Holy Matrimony and civil marriage (it is of course tosh … marriage is marriage, period – I don’t recall a marriage vow or ceremony in the garden of Eden – yet God was certainly there – and Adam and Eve were married – even if she was his second wife), what can… Read more »
I suspect the thread of removing the right to be marriage registrars would ensure notice was taken as, I suspect, most couples marrying in church do so for the civil rather than religious part of the marriage. If you have to go to the registry office, why go to church as well?
This would kick the church in the finances which the really should listen to.
I think there’s a more general case for reviewing whether any religious body which gets tax benefits as a charity should be able also to rely upon exemptions for religious bodies within the Equality Act: to my mind, as a matter of public policy, it should be an either/or choice. If we get a Labour government next, I am certain they will be looking at the charitable status of public schools and it would be easy to broaden that more generally to what organisations should be permitted charitable status. As to the Church of England as the established church and… Read more »
Surely England may just see a repeat of the parliamentary response to the 2012 vote against equal consecration: fury from lawmakers and not-so-subtle hints that the Church gets its act together or Parliament will do the job for them. Message was promptly read, marked, learned and inwardly digested, all the supposed impossibilities of reconsidering the matter within the current Synod mysteriously evaporated, and women were rightfully consecrated bishop within a few years.
“Marriage is marriage.” Spot on, Anthony. Marriage is our lived experience, our lived devotion, our lived intimacy, our life lived with God. The legal department can be as tricky as they like, and maybe even legally correct, but I can have a marriage in a registry office which is civil, I *can’t* have a marriage in the Church of England because I’m banned from Holy Matrimony, I *can* have a marriage in the Scottish Episcopal Church which *is* Holy Matrimony. Point is – it’s marriage. And as a Christian, obtaining my scrap of legal paper, I gave myself to God… Read more »
Unfortunately the slogan “Marriage is marriage” does not really make sense, since it has several possible meanings, some of which aren’t true. If we take it to mean that all notions of marriage are the same, it’s clearly untrue. The secular legal definition isn’t the same as the Church of England definition. Marriage as a secular function with legal effect isn’t the same sort of thing as matrimony as a religious function with spiritual effect even if the legal definitions were the same. Perhaps it’s intended to be advocating that all notions of marriage ought to be the same, at… Read more »
U.N.: “Unfortunately the slogan “Marriage is marriage” does not really make sense.” Of course it makes sense, U.N. To the people who actually live out their marriage, in love, devotion, in crisis and joy, with tears and laughter, in intimacy and with friends, in care and sickness, in givenness to each other… And I take your point that about atomised experience-centred understanding of the term, but it’s not really just atomised, is it? Whether the couple married are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Secular, if they’re married, they’re married. Sure the legal department of the C of E may want to… Read more »
As I explained, the slogan doesn’t make sense precisely because there are several different notions of “marriage” under discussion. Indeed, the whole debate is about how to reconcile “marriage” as a secular and legal status, “marriage” as a religious and spiritual status, and “marriage” as a personal conviction. They aren’t the same, and the point under debate is that some people who are personally convinced that their relationships are marriages in the personal sense should be recognised by others as marriages in the other senses, namely the religious and the legal senses. Arguing that these things which are visibly different… Read more »
I think people should be reminded of the dangers of civil authorities restricting religious practice. I see no problem with the church being banned from conducting any marriage legally, but once you make religious people do something they do not want or restrict freedom that can never be a liberal position. Whilst I may find the wearing of Islamic dress not to my taste, the French government banning it is a restriction of rights and is a very slippery slope indeed. A desperate plea to Parliament to sort out the church (oh the irony with the current disgrace we have)… Read more »
Hi Paul, you write: “once you make religious people do something they do not want or restrict freedom that can never be a liberal position…” But it’s not Parliament doing that, it’s the bishops. They are making large numbers of people in church communities submit to something they believe in conscience is wrong. That’s the domination going on: domination of conscience. They restrict the freedom and conscience of church communities to marry gay people if that is their belief and moral sense of commitment to their own communities. Parliament would probably settle for allowing people with different views to have… Read more »
The argument of established church needs to be called out as an invention of the state, not anything to do with New Testament Christianity. Unfortunately people at the Reformation and more closely the Act of Uniformity accepted that the Church of England is Episcopal so the bishops do have more right to direct the church than the state. Your position is more akin to state churches in Nordic countries but they at least receive state funding in return for direction. I don’t doubt that people reject the blessing suggestion, but the church is the only place in which it should… Read more »
But bishops are state appointees, and the church has no mechanism whereby ordinary members are represented.
In general I agree but not for the established church which is a special case.
I do think, however, as I said above that any religious body wanting tax breaks should have to sign up to certain standards in return, notably not expecting exemptions from equality law.
So what about bi-christians? Suppose someone had a civil SSM blessed in church using these prayers who then gets a divorce. In the eyes of the church they are not then a divorcee and couldn’t be legally be denied a church wedding to an opposite sex partner in the future. It’s all very well saying marriage is marriage and theologically that makes sense but doctrinally as soon as the Church of England starts making a distinction between civil (legal) marriage and Holy Matrimony it gets into no end of problems So for instance a opposite sex couple get a civil… Read more »
These are indeed tricky issues, but not exactly novel. The Church of England already makes these distinctions, and has these issues, over divorced people — it’s fair to say that it has still not completely resolved them. The question is further complicated by the fact that CofE marriages are also of legal effect.
How could the “right” of clergy to act as registrars be removed without also removing the right of parishioners to marry in their parish churches?
In any case, as far as the C of E is concerned it is a duty, not a right, of clergy to act as registrars.
The proposal, which isn’t new, would be a complete separation of civil marriage from ‘Holy Matrimony’ as in most countries in Europe. The church could still welcome those on the roll, parishioners, and those with a qualifying connection, to come to the parish church for an appropriate service after the civil ceremony. It’s what happens now in An Order for Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage. But they would arrive as a married couple.
Most people who have both religious and secular weddings choose to have the religious service a marriage, not a blessing. Indeed many would not regard themselves as “properly” married until they had had the religious marriage. If the proposal were to abandon Holy Matrimony and only offer a blessing, that would be a non-starter.
That is what happens in many non-Anglican churches. Only Anglican clergy are automatically registrars, though clergy of other denominations can become registrars if they wish.
When I was a nonconformist, couples had the option of marrying in a register office and coming to church afterwards for a religious service, or booking a registrar to come church – if a registrar was available. The latter option was more expensive, of course.
Are Church of England clergy still regarded as registrars now that the right to issue marriage certificates following church weddings has been removed from them?
There was a further question asked this morning (Thursday 26 January), at around 10:30. Per the Order Paper, Christine Jardine (Lib Dem – Edinburgh West) was scheduled “To ask the Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Commissioners have held discussions with senior Church leaders on allowing clergy to conduct blessings for same-sex couples. (903296)” First Andrew Selous clarified his description of Synod’s voting procedures from the prior Urgent Question. Apparently the “legal office” had misinformed him slightly? He said he had received a clarification yesterday, and he put that on the record. Ms.Jardine followed up… Read more »
I’ve added the text of his clarification to the original post.
There is a video clip here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcO7fVHDMeQ
Thank you, Simon.
The video of the Urgent Question in Parliament which you link to is pretty long. Jayne has posted a section of it (under 2 mins) which was riveting, as Sir Chris Bryant stood up to speak. Do try to watch it as it is (I think) really moving, and cuts through the legalese and distinctions between Holy Matrimony and marriage being discussed on this page, getting to the heart of the matter and how wrong it is to continue banning gay and lesbian couples from being married in the churches where they worship and give their lives: https://www.facebook.com/100006522032900/videos/865876311405249/
Watching the full 30 minutes does give a sense of the breadth of dismay on both sides of the House to the CofE’s position. Wes Streeting’s contribution as a younger Anglican ought to be salutary for the members of the GS too.
Hi Father, yes the whole session is well worth watching because it’s great to see Parliamentarians expressing a moral position and it’s pretty moving (with potential foreboding for the Church of England).
I posted Jayne’s ‘section’ with Sir Chris Bryant, because it was especially resonating and shuddered with all the decency and emotion of somebody whose own life and experience (as a former Anglican priest) have been impacted by the Church’s prejudice and discrimination.
Wow! The clarification issued by the Second Church Estates Commissioner is really worth reflection and comment! He appears to say that a simple majority in each house could be sufficient to change the doctrine of marriage. This is not what I had previously understand, but could be a game changer if true. Can anyone shed more informed light on this??
Having seen the ABC speak this week that is not his opinion.
GSFA’s assessment that the CoE’s served up a “farcical compromise, with many contradictions” isn’t wrong. A “compromise” that’s drawn the same heat from conservatives as would equal marriage, while profoundly hurting those who would see all treated equally before God. In short, hardly anyone wants this. GSFA have said they’re not leaving the Communion and have offered alternative oversight to conservatives. Now it appears that only a simple majority is needed in Synod. A clear way forward exists to have sacramental marriage celebrated equally by English Anglicans while protecting the consciences of those who disagree. For pity’s sake, let it… Read more »
The legal paper GSMIsc 1339 leaves us in a very peculiar place. The lawyers say there is no change in the “Doctrine of Marriage”. Campaigners for change complain that there is no proposal to change the “Doctrine of Marriage”. Those who oppose change insist that this is a fundamental change and challenge to the “Doctrine of Marriage”. First, I am not sure why and when Marriage acquired the status of Doctrine – that would be an interesting question, but no-one is answering it. Why is it not rather a Canonical definition and liturgical understanding? What makes something “Doctrine”? And when… Read more »
“I am not sure why and when Marriage acquired the status of Doctrine – that would be an interesting question, but no-one is answering it.” This 2016 volume (which is a very long read) may help to explain: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/how-marriage-became-one-of-the-sacraments/A1D4E582A1F5CBF9FF6E01788EEA0112, and it received glowing reviews. Philip Reynolds starts with Gen. 2:24 and Eph. 5:32 and concludes with Trent, but stresses the influence of Hugh of St Victor, Gratian and Peter Lombard but, above all, that of Alexander of Hales, for whom the rite (which had previously provided a form of legal cover for ‘animal’ impulses) conferred a form of sanctifying grace… Read more »
As in my response just below to Unreliable Narrator my question is about the use and import of the word “doctrine” in this context – the history of marriage shows varied influences (including, importantly, property and inheritance rights) so the content of marriage has varied more than is sometimes acknowledged. But I think the idea of “one man, one woman for life” as a thread throughout historic understandings is hardly in dispute. But how does that understanding lose accoutrements like property (which once would have been central to the concept) and become a stand-alone doctrine in contrast to an understanding?
I am not certain that the ‘understanding’ ever fully lost ‘accoutrements like property’, for the economic union of a couple has been central to the concept of marriage, at least until very recently. However, for some scholars, the ‘sacralisation’ (largely between the 7th and 13th centuries) of what had been essentially a contractual affair that aimed at the effective management of healthy reproduction, kinship and property was due to one primary cause: “For the Church to grow and survive it had to accumulate property, which meant acquiring control over the way it was passed from one generation to the next… Read more »
A moments search finds the phrase “Christian Doctrine of Marriage” as the title of a book written in 1870, and arguing that the Anglican doctrine is consistent with the historical tradition. So it’s hardly an innovation.
I think my question is more about what constitutes a “doctrine” – it is definitional. “Doctrine of Marriage” is used, but the lawyers would seemingly have “Doctrine of Holy Matrimony” if anything (according to their terminology). So for example the 39 Articles have a preface by King Charles I which includes “That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which Our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word”. Now the Articles do talk about Matrimony as not being a “Sacrament… Read more »
GSMisc 1339 is a nasty little document, often seen when principals want legal cover at all costs for a course of action that is clearly otherwise shameful. It merely elevates Holy Matrimony to a new level, making it more exclusive and appearing to give it an inviolable status. There are echoes here of the discredited GS 2055: ‘interpreting the existing law and guidance to permit maximum freedom within it, without changes to the law, or the doctrine of the Church.’
Nasty yes, and makes excellent justification for the abandonment of “Holy Matrimony” in favour of a) civil marriage law and b) religious marriage rituals.
It is interesting that the CofE is suddenly so intent on provincial autonomy. Some of us would have welcomed this kind of statement 20 years ago. Of course, back then it was not the CofE that was being attacked. Autonomy for me, but not for thee?
As a retired priest I officiated at five weddings last summer. All five services were delightful but when it came to the signing of the register all we had to sign was a scrappy piece of A4 paper! Such a contrast to the dignified signing of those large green registers which brought such a sense of occasion to the ceremony.
Intriguingly here, ‘Froghole’ points out the idiosyncrasy of those who want to stick to the ’39 Artifacts’ – formerly, in their heyday, known as the ‘39 Articles‘ and still cherished by GAFCON and the Global South – this ‘Instrument’ does not consider Holy Matrimony to be ‘a Sacrament of the Gospel’, for the reasons shown “Art. XXV: “Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of… Read more »
Nothing to do with the ongoing discussion, but I was gladdened to hear just now that the ABC has made Dr Robert Willis Emeritus Dean of Canterbury Cathedral. It is about time he was recognised for his lifetime of devoted service, which continued all through the pandemic until the day he was forced to retire.
The statement from the Anglican Communion Office in response to GSFA makes me wonder if there are any doctrinal expectations placed upon an ecclesial body seeking to join the Anglican Communion as a Province. Does anyone know what are the qualifications for membership?
I can remember many years ago during my Anglican Days back in 1979 when I was spending a year with the Pilsdon Community in Dorset, the then Warden and Leader, the Founder the late Canon Percy Smith, was leading a discussion in the Library of Pilsdon Manor after Sunday Evensong on the subject of Marriage and Divorce and he felt personally that Marriage needed to be De-Sacramentalised, that the Church should not be in the business of Solemnising any marriages whatsoever and that all Marriages should take place in the Registry Office. I am not sure everyone would agree with… Read more »
The State would be over-stepping if it tried to change arrangements in Scotland from Westminster. That is a matter for the devolved powers in Holyrood and would fall within Scottish law. The problem at hand is an English one.
Susannah: It’s true that the Marriage Act 1949 does not apply to Scotland (or Northern Ireland). The Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 is an Act of the UK Parliament. It’s probably academic but I’m not sure I would like to speculate whether Scotland’s devolved powers extend to changing the law of marriage in Scotland – I tend to think not! But the UK Parliament would not make any such move without first consulting the Scottish Parliament.
Marriage in Scotland is a devolved matter. The Scottish Parliament has passed a few acts to change the law of marriage, for example the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014.
Thank you. That was so obvious that I can only put it down to a senior moment.
Consequent upon the negative response of the Global South (GSFA) to the Church of England’s announcement of Same-Sex Blessings in the Church of England. The C. of E. has issued a statement to the effect that each Province of the world-wide Anglican Communion is a separate legal identity, responsible for its own authority on matters of adiaphora (not relating to the Doctrine of the Christian Creeds) Each Province has its own constitutional legal framework, vested in its local General Synod, attended by its houses of bishops, clergy and laity – each of which House has a vote on changes to… Read more »
I’m not sure what distinction is being made here. None of the provinces is bound to follow any credal “dictate of the Church of England” either. The creeds speak for themselves. They predate the Church of England by more than a millennium.
After spending quite some time reading through the various papers and GS proposals my main thought is can these prayers of ‘blessing’ not just be used now. Given the legal advice is that they do not contravene canon B5 and therefore are not novel in their doctrine why can priests not simply do this now? This essentially means: –
• the bishops have not actually introduced anything new
• all this time priests could ‘bless’ couples in this way
• the only new thing is replacing Issues in Human Sexuality
Yes, Gareth, I think you are absolutely correct. These prayers can be used now, irrespective of whether they are commended by the bishops or passed by the Synod, and could have been used legally ever since the introduction of civil partnerships.