The Church of England’s turmoil over same-sex marriage continues. With the resignation in November of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, the newest development within the long-running saga is one other delay by the bishops in bringing in standalone services to bless same-sex couples – services that can closely resemble same-sex weddings.
How did we get here? A transient recap. Lacking the votes in General Synod to herald the full-scale changes unexpectedly, in December 2023 the House of Bishops voted to commend prayers for the blessing of same-sex couples – the Prayers of Love and Faith, or PLF – to be used in atypical church services.
Originally the concept was then to herald the standalone services using the correct, legally secure route i.e. under Canon B2 (the canons of the Church being its governing rules). But in July 2024 that plan unexpectedly modified and the bishops and General Synod voted (narrowly) to herald standalone services for an ‘experimental period’ under the identical non-legally-secure route used to herald the ordinary-service prayers (i.e. under Canon B5). The commencement of that experimental period has now been delayed, probably into 2026.
The query many conservative Anglicans are asking, though, is why, if the ‘B5’ route will not be legally secure, aren’t the PLF prayers being subjected to some type of robust legal challenge?
It’s an excellent query. The Alliance – a bunch of church leaders representing congregations estimated to amount to over a 3rd of the CofE’s usual Sunday attendance – wrote to the bishops in July 2023 denouncing their approach as “illegal, unconstitutional and illegitimate”.
This seems to imply a legal challenge can be forthcoming. So where is it?
One difficulty is that the CofE’s route for difficult innovations on doctrinal grounds will not be fit for purpose. It has only been used twice in 60 years, and never in respect of prayers or liturgy. Even though the PLF prayers are plainly contrary to the CofE’s doctrine of marriage, a legal challenge using that route (known by the arcane title of ‘The Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved’) is unlikely to succeed.
It’s not crucial to go down that road though. That’s since the non-legally-secure B5 route used to introduce the PLF comprises a provision that simply allows any bishop to issue binding directions to the clergy in his or her diocese that they could not use the prayers. This is since the B5 route really just allows individual clergy to make use of their very own discretion to introduce revolutionary prayers (the clue is in the title: it’s headed ‘Of the discretion of ministers in conduct of public prayer’). It’s then as much as their bishop to check out what they’re doing and choose if it’s okay.
So why aren’t the conservative bishops doing that? Why aren’t they taking a look at what their liberal clergy are doing and saying, ‘Hang on a minute, that is contrary to our doctrine of marriage, stop it now’?
After all, such robust motion could be a really powerful challenge to that mischievous majority of bishops who’ve effectively tried to bypass the correct process for bringing in same-sex blessings. Imagine if numerous dioceses with conservative bishops banned the brand new prayers because they’re contrary to the Church’s teaching on marriage – making clear at a stroke exactly how legally unsafe the route the bulk tried to make use of was. As well as being worthwhile in its own right, this creation of PLF-free dioceses could be a precursor to the eventual formation of a separate space within the CofE for those of orthodox faith, certainly one of the important thing goals of the Alliance.
The problem faced by a bishop who desires to try to do that, nonetheless, is that the bishops voted nationally to ‘commend’ the prayers. Doesn’t this overrule any individual bishop who desires to direct otherwise?
Not in any respect. For the reality is that a ‘commendation’ by the House of Bishops doesn’t have any legal effect. It’s not something mentioned in any of the Church’s canons. It’s only a practice the bishops have developed, effectively as a way of guiding ministers in exercising their discretion under Canon B5. But it doesn’t prevent a person bishop, or group of bishops, from taking a distinct view to the bulk and directing their clergy otherwise. A majority of bishops might wish to assert that the PLF are in conformity with doctrine, but their colleagues aren’t obliged to agree, and under the Church’s canons it’s each bishop who’s charged with issuing directions under Canon B5 in his or her diocese. What the vast majority of bishops might think is de facto neither here nor there.
Perhaps some conservative bishops have been misadvised otherwise and told that their hands are tied by the House of Bishops’ commendation of the PLF. But it isn’t hard to see why such advice should be flawed. After all, if this was the case then it might make such a ‘commendation’ a way of turning B5 right into a legally secure route, putting off the necessity for the correct B2 process for introducing liturgy. This is clearly not what the method is designed for, nor the way it is written. The point of B5 is to permit individual clergy to innovate under the direction of their bishop; it will not be to permit a majority of bishops to gang up on their orthodox colleagues and bypass B2.
Where does this leave us? A wayward majority within the House of Bishops has introduced same-sex blessings under a route that will not be legally secure. Because it will not be legally secure, conservative bishops have it inside their power to ban such blessings of their dioceses. This is desirable in itself and in addition a precursor to making a space inside the CofE for orthodox Christianity to flourish. The conservative bishops must stop listening to those whispering otherwise and begin making it occur.
Dr Will Jones is a trustee of Anglican Mainstream.
