The Church of England’s parliamentary body today agreed to proceed moving forward with plans to introduce standalone services of blessing for same-sex couples.
A motion asking that bishops revise current Pastoral Guidance that restricts using the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) in standalone services was backed by all three houses within the General Synod.
The vote revealed the depth of divisions within the Church of England with 22 bishops voting for and 12 against, with five abstentions. In the House of Clergy, 99 voted for and 88 against, with two abstentions, while within the House of Laity, 95 voted for and 91 against, with two abstentions.
The motion committed the House of Bishops to report back to Synod in February 2025 on further theological work into the implications of PLF for the doctrine of marriage, and clergy in same-sex civil marriages.
Bishop Martyn Snow, lead bishop for the Living in Love and Faith process, said he had heard the concerns of each side of the controversy and wanted them to know that “you might have a spot within the Church of England, you’re loved by God, we wish you to be sat on the table”.
He insisted that nobody was being forced out of the Church and that introducing the prayers doesn’t amount to a change in doctrine on marriage or sex outside of marriage.
“They are intended as easy prayers which send out a powerful message of welcome,” he said.
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said that the last 18 months since Synod first approved the method towards PLF had “felt like 18 months of trench warfare on this issue”, as he asked Synod members to “put down our rifles”. He denied that PLF amounted to a change in doctrine and said that nobody can be “asked to do what their conscience cannot allow”.
In the times leading as much as the controversy, the Alliance network of traditionalist Anglicans within the Church of England wrote to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York warning that if standalone PLF services are introduced, they may “don’t have any selection but rapidly to ascertain what would in effect be a latest de facto ‘parallel Province’ throughout the Church of England and to hunt pastoral oversight from bishops who remain faithful to orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality”.
In a written response issued prior to Synod, the Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, called the letter “threatening” and “catastrophising”.
Addressing Alliance members in the course of the Synod debate, Bishop Snow said, “I do know that you wish to remain within the Church of England and I’m grateful in your commitment to proceed in conversation with us.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, added that he “cannot imagine the Church of England without the Alliance network members and friends”.
Helen Lamb, a lay Synod member who signed the Alliance letter, was sceptical in regards to the guarantees.
“Thank you for words of wanting to listen, wanting to interact … but I’m afraid I’ll consider it after I see it,” she said.
“We need to stay on the bus; please don’t run us over.”
Rev Vaughan Roberts warned that the Church of England risked going the identical way because the Episcopal Church within the US, which split over the problem of same-sex marriage and blessings.
He warned that the proposals didn’t offer “a trajectory that makes us consider there is a place for us”, and warned that “the implications may very well be massive”.
Evangelical Anglican theologian and blogger, Rev Ian Paul, echoed these fears and predicted that trust “will finally be broken” and the “Church will split”.
He went on to warn that the Church “will proceed in serious decline”.
“In 14 years we’ve halved in size,” he said. “In one diocese, the number of kids attending has dropped by 50 per cent in 4 years and there are not any real signs that that is slowing yet, let alone reversing.
“After the Scottish Episcopal Church modified its doctrine of marriage, it declined by 40 per cent in six years. The Church of Scotland might be extinct by around 2038, in only 14 years from now.
“No Western denomination has modified its doctrine of marriage without then accelerating in decline. We might be no different. This is just not catastrophising. This is just not an influence play. This is honesty. My friends, that is reality.”
He said that if people did need to vote for the motion, they need to achieve this “along with your eyes wide open, knowing it would destroy trust, knowing it would divide the Church, knowing it would result in greater decline”.
“Personally I do not feel that any of this stuff are an illustration of the love of God,” he said.
“Vote for this only should you think distrust, disunity, decline are the value price paying.”
