Prayers of Love and Faith: Bishops agree next steps to bring to Synod
09/10/2023
House of Bishops agrees to commend Prayers of Love and Faith
The Church of England’s House of Bishops has agreed in principle that prayers asking for God’s blessing for same-sex couples – known as Prayers of Love and Faith – should be commended for use.
The House, which met in London, also concluded that structures for special services for same-sex couples, based on Prayers of Love and Faith, should go forward to be formally authorised under canon law.
The bishops will bring proposals to General Synod next month which will pave the way for a process that would lead to the authorisation of these special services under Canon B2.
This process, expected to take until 2025, would involve consultation with every diocese and require approval by General Synod.
Bishops gave serious consideration to an alternative legal process which could have enabled special services to be authorised almost immediately – but temporarily – (under Canon B5A). This would still have required a further process for the services to be authorised permanently (under Canon B2) by Synod.
New draft pastoral guidance will be brought to next month’s meeting of Synod, setting out how the system could operate. Further work is already in progress on the second part of the Pastoral Guidance which will look at matters in the life and work of clergy and lay ministers.
Proposals for the Prayers of Love and Faith were discussed in an historic debate at the General Synod in February of this year. Synod called on the bishops to work on Pastoral Guidance and other arrangements needed to implement that decision.
The proposals will be discussed in detail at a meeting of General Synod in London on November 13 to 15.
At today’s meeting the bishops agreed that:
The Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, who co-chaired the steering group which has brought the proposals forward, said: “The House of Bishops’ decisions today continue to implement Synod’s vote to recognise publicly the commitment of same-sex couples and to pray God’s blessing for them.
“They have agreed to commend Prayers of Love and Faith and also considered the best way to authorise special standalone services. Having carefully considering the legal, theological and pastoral implications of possible approaches, the bishops concluded that it would ultimately be clearer to proceed directly to consideration under Canon B2.
“We acknowledge that there are some who would like this process to move faster, however the move to full authorisation will provide clarity and wide consultation ahead of a final decision by synod in 2025.
“I know that for some, these measures go too far and, for others, not nearly far enough and the bishops discussed the need for pastoral reassurance, and for some the need for formal structural pastoral provision.
“But the heart of the gospel is reconciliation – our desire is to remain together as one Church in our uncertainty, finding ways to live well with our different perspectives and convictions.”
The meeting included times of prayer and worship, with prayers said for crises around the world including the situations in Israel and Gaza, and in Afghanistan.
Wow, we’re really motoring now…final agreement perhaps autumn 2024, first use of prayers 2025? Really engaging with the Simplification Process. Anyone remember that?
So that’s a green Light for the commended prayers from now (or at least as soon as the paperwork is done). A new item on the agenda is a formal authorised liturgy – which had not been anticipated earlier in the year – with the standard Synodical process for liturgical authorisation. But whatever the maths for 2025, we can start creating special Services of the Word/Eucharistic rites for same sex couples now and conduct such services. And, from the conservative perspective, their argument about this being doctrinal change and the subsequent threats of schism are ignored. That threat is being… Read more »
Simon, I think this shows exactly the opposite. The bishops have once again decided to avoid the threat posed by conservatives, offering us the freedom to use prayers that we are already perfectly free to use. I’m not on Synod and I have a very different perspective from most of my friends and contacts in the Church. I’m unlikely to live to see the transformation that my twelve year old self knew I was right to imagine for myself in 1957 – a Christian church free from prejudice against my natural affections and desires. Anyone who hasn’t already created and… Read more »
Whilst agreeing with you that clergy have been able to create services to celebrate the partnerships and relationships of SS couples and many have done so joyfully, the difference that prayers being commended might make is that there will be less of a diocesan post code lottery. In some dioceses clergy have felt or been constrained by the views of their bishops. But yes, this is not radical inclusion.
I think you might have. The bishops voted to commend the prayers for use now. That enacts the announcement they made in February and which was endorsed by General Synod. I think Helen is right about the use of Canon B2 as a way of offering the chance for commended texts to become authorised ones. But a legitimate question might therefore be, “if you decided not to pursue equal marriage because of the synodical maths, and because it would therefore inevitably lead to disappointment and harm to LGBT people in the church, why do you think that seeking authorisation of… Read more »
Trying to work out where the B2/2025 combination came from; not mentioned during the Living with Difference meetings (still trying to work out how those made any ‘difference’ to anything). Is B2/2025 an attempt to get it all sorted before the next Synod elections? Looking at the delays from Feb 2023 (the big vote! Oh no it wasn’t!) to July 2023 (this is where the decisions happen! Oh no they didn’t!) to Nov 2023 (still a mystery), will this process really be over before we have elections again?
As with Synod debates on equality and gender, so with sexuality. You vote as members, but the courtiers behind the scenes craft the loopholes, cause the delays and dilute the actual decision Synod took, so the legislation continues to balance irreconcilable differences. When there is no moral or theological leadership, expedient political compromise will always fill the vacuum, in the folorn hope that splitting the diffrerence will keep everyone happy. Despite this being a provenly flawed approach to ethics, the CofE leadership still believes that compromise will win out over convictions it cannot bear to affirm. The sluggish history of… Read more »
It usually takes about 2-3 years for rites which don’t have much opposition to get through the B2 synodical process, so 2025 is a realistic assessment. However, the key thing here is that the bishops will, at the same time, be asking dioceses (and through them, deanery synods) to indicate their support of such authorisation. This is similar to the process with regard to the ordination of women as bishops. If the synod then (because of the 2/3rd majority) fail to authorise, they will be doing so in the face of potentially overwhelming diocesan support – as happened with women… Read more »
Is it the case that no aspect of this will be voted on, with any form of vote, at the November Synod?
It remains to be seen what will be brought to Synod in November, the papers should be out on 19th October. However, the commendation of the suite of prayers by the House of Bishops does not need Synodical approval, and as Simon says above will happen once the paperwork is done. This is effectively implementing part of the Synodical vote in February this year, where the Bishops stated their intention to commend these prayers and Synod voted to welcome that intention. So that debate has already happened.
Also, the pastoral guidance, which is due to replace Issues in Human Sexuality, and bears particularly on gay clergy in civil marriages, does not need a Synod debate before being issued by the House of Bishops. This was exactly the case with Issues, which was not debated before being released. This is the bishops acting together with episcopal authority, which is not dependent upon the Synod as it bears on *their* pastoral action, which – ideally – should be corporate and consistent.
This reads to me like further can kicking. Have I missed something?
No Jo, I don’t think it is. See the various comments above.
The central practical issue for orthodox believers is that they no longer trust the bishops.
The commendation of PLF for public use is the final nail in the coffin with regard to their confidence in the bishops.
It is the point of no return.
It is a mistake to imagine the orthodox find any grounds for satisfaction in the decisions made and announced yesterday.
Which orthodox believers? Plenty of us feel these measures don’t go nearly far enough.
Given the range of differing practices and attitudes which there are in the church generally (not just the CofE) how do you define ‘orthodoxy’? For me it revolves around the deity, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, and very little else. For other people, it embraces vestments and liturgy. So what exactly should it contain? Beyond that, my understanding of ‘inclusivity’ and ‘equality’ is simply based on our national law, and a Christ who himself died for all peoples, and accepted them, regardless of race, creed or anything else, on the basis of their trusting him – and still does.… Read more »
Indeed!
The petty insistence that conservatives are the only “orthodox believers” is part of the problem.
Regardless of this, what does this proclaimed loss of trust/confidence mean in practical terms? If the bishops don’t kowtow to CEEC and abandon all talk of treating LGBT people as fully human what happens next? There have been enough vague threats masquerading as warnings, it’s time to do something, or reveal that it was all “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
Surely LGBT ARE fully human… we are all sinners. We seem to be adding more and more ways to identify ourselves. The core question, it seems to me, should be:is there evidence to suggest that the church, for hundreds of years, has misunderstood Biblical teachings on sexuality and gender? I think it is more likely that, in our desire to reach out pastorally to others, and with the press of Western culture on the church, its doctrines and traditions are being eroded beyond recognition. Whatever happened to picking up our crosses, denying self and following Christ? All Christians must do… Read more »
A friend of mine who is same sex attracted is told by her pastor (not Anglican), who is a married man, ‘There’s nothing wrong with being single.’ Which sounds to me like loading burdens onto others which he is not willing to carry himself.
How do we balance denying self with Jesus saying he came that we may have life in abundance?
Wasn’t it the apostle Paul who said that he wished all were single like him? I think the Church might have got swept along with the romance of the wedding celebration, forgetting to emphasise the sacrificial nature of the estate of marriage. Why DO we assume that the married way is, in itself, in some way better or more worthwhile or more attractive? Jesus said there will be no marriage in Heaven, but I reckon we will have such an abundance of joy there… wouldn’t you agree?
We are all sinners, but not because of who we love. As for whether people have misunderstood Biblical teachings for centuries: yes, of course they have! How else would we have moved from an understanding that slavery is completely fine to one where it is abhorrent? There is a risk of conforming to the “spirit of this age”, but there is an equal risk that the church has been conformed to the spirit of a previous age. Even 400 years ago John Robinson said “I am verily persuaded the Lord hath more truth yet to break forth out of His… Read more »
I can understand that.
The surprise move to attempt to authorise a specific rite cannot, to my mind, be said not to indicate a change in doctrine. It might not be called a marriage, it might use very careful wording, but if it quacks like a duck … the difference seems to be sophistry. I guarantee that if a specific rite is adopted, couples would describe it to friends and family as their “wedding”.
They will already be a married couple by the time they reach the church of course …
Yes. The same is true of Hindu couples for example.
Methinks the noble word ‘orthodox’ might be being hijacked?
Yes. It gets appropriated by those who want to enrobe themselves with it to legitimise their position. They are thereby judging their brothers and sisters in Christ, who don’t hold their precise doctrinal position on this point, to be ‘unorthodox’, when orthodoxy is about salvation issues, not secondary doctrinal points.
A valid point. Terminology is being used to make a point. For example: ‘open’, good as opposed to the others who are by definition ‘closed’, negative; ‘inclusive’, good as opposed to the others who are by definition ‘exclusive’, negative; ‘thinking’, good as opposed to the others who are by definition ‘unthinking’, negative; ‘accepting’, good, as opposed to the others who are by definition ‘unaccepting’, negative. I am sure that there are others that I have missed.
“New draft pastoral guidance will be brought to next month’s meeting of Synod, setting out how the system could operate. Further work is already in progress on the second part of the Pastoral Guidance which will look at matters in the life and work of clergy and lay ministers.” This part seems terribly vague to me. Why is the pastoral guidance in two parts – with the second part having capital letters – Pastoral Guidance? Should not this guidance have been available much earlier? What is taking so long that the crucial questions of what happens in the life of… Read more »
Looking no further than Canon B2, any new authorised form of service requires it to be approved by all three Houses of GS, with a majority in each House of not less than two-thirds of those present and voting. I’m not really clear how some commenting here appear to think that clergy at parish level are able to preempt the legal requirement.
There is a difference between “prayers” and “a form of service”. It is perhaps also worth quoting Canon B5 in full: ________ B 5 Of the discretion of ministers in conduct of public prayer1. The minister who is to conduct the service may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service authorized by Canon B 1 according to particular circumstances. 2. The minister having the cure of souls may on occasions for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B 2… Read more »
Thank you. Of all of this I am already aware! I emphasised ‘form of service’ – as distinct from prayers (and the discretion permitted by Canon B5 2) – merely making the point that the two-thirds majority hurdle in all three Houses for an authorised form of service has yet to be crossed and cannot be dispensed with legally.
Canon B2 is the safe legal route. The draft authorised service(s) wouldn’t come to General Synod until all dioceses had considered them. It is probable that all would agree. If the GS declined finally to approve (the pressure not to do so would be massive), it would be left to the 2026-2031 Quinquennium. Thereafter the route to equal marriage would likely be clear. Do you detect a hint of exhaustion in all this?!
There is actually quite a bit of latitude for the use of unauthorised forms of service – from harvest services, family services, Remembrance, memorial, and commemoration services, services for victims and survivors of abuse and domestic violence, repetition of wedding vows, blessings for various objects and places – all kinds of occasions which pop up in the course of pastoral ministry. The key issue is this: ‘3. All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the… Read more »
Thank you. I’m familiar with the ‘conflict’ and choose not to join in it publicly. As a matter of law, at least to me, it is crystal clear that the contemplated authorised form of service can only be approved by GS and, as I understand, that is what the current process aims at. We should know more by next month – it’s not long to wait!
Just as a general comment, it’s worth reminding ourselves that matters of doctrine are outside the scope of a CDM.
We should know what is proposed procedurally when the full Agenda and supporting papers are circulated to General Synod members (and posted on the C of E website), which should be no later than Friday 27 October.
Thank you for posting this Mark. Very enlightening.
As a bear of little brain, could somebody please explain to me what effect, if any, the House of Bishops commending prayers has in law?
There seems to be nothing requiring it in the wording of Canon B5, which is a discretion given to the individual minister.
Unless I’m missing something, it doesn’t change the discretion of the minister one jot. Which implies that anything the House of Bishops is intending to commend either (a) can already be used; or (b) cannot be used even if the House of Bishops commend it.
So, what am I missing?
What commendation by the House of Bishops gives is a prima facie defence to each individual minister who exercises their discretion that they are indeed not contravening the discretionary canon, and they are not going to be disciplined by their bishop, and that if a complaint were to come to a church court the case would be dismissed.
Equally, I may also be missing something, but note the future tense in the Bishops’ statement:
”The prayers and readings in Prayers of Love and Faith for use with same-sex couples will be commended by the House of Bishops for use in public worship.”
That suggests to me something more formal yet to be announced – presumably next month?
There will simply be a statement issued on behalf of the House of Bishops. It will need to be signed by both archbishops in my opinion. Its text will be studied carefully. As to its timing, it will of course be after the General Synod November Group of Sessions, but if left to me to advise it should immediately follow. The last prominent example was concerning the remarriage of divorcees. I think only ++Ebor signed that.
Let us be charitable and patient. The liturgical and pastoral principle is “Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivandi”: The rule of what is prayed is the rule of what is believed and the rule of what is lived. This step is a lot for the Church to undertake and to do so with authenticity and integrity. In other words tread carefully but tread confidently. Maybe this is not the season for suspicion and cynicism but for faith and for joy.
Just as an overall comment on House of Bishops statements following their meetings. The minutes of most of the meetings are not worth the effort taken to produce them – they regularly say nothing of substance and give no leadership on issues of openness and accountability which are supposed to be on the agenda. “We met” is the essential content. And then there are statements like this one, which will be understood very differently by those who can decode them, and those who can’t. What is the point? The thing is littered with technicalities which are not explained. It is… Read more »
So true. And nobody yet has even attempted to explain why it is caveated with an “in principle”.
Good point, Kate
The arguments over both scripture and semantics have been repeated on this site so many times I no longer offer comment on them.
There are a set of practical matters that remains of enormous importance.
The orthodox (by which I mean those who hold to the historic definition of marriage and sexuality) see nothing in Monday’s developments that improve matters.
There are no winners. We are all losers at the hands of the bishops.
“The orthodox (by which I mean those who hold to the historic definition of marriage and sexuality) see nothing in Monday’s developments that improve matters.”
And which “historic definition” is that? Abraham’s? David’s? Solomon’s? Or are we looking at the 17th through 19th centuries when women were basically chattel, sold for a “bride price” (disguised as a “dowry”). Or the early 20th century, when marriages–especially among the monied classes–were better thought of as business mergers rather than Holy Matrimony?
Actually, little to no secrets here: Let the question to stand alone by itself for as long as possible till nobody else makes more questions, and then, here we are with what else they need to get accomplished. Meanwhile the most vocal naysayers will find out their refuge elsewhere… And the Anglican Communion will reconfigure itself as it seems it will be. It’s just a matter of time, sadly and apparently with no peaceful specific model in mind! And why I say sadly? Because a peaceful specific model of making a settlement on the AC would facilitate our post Synod… Read more »