The five bishops of the Church in Wales (Bangor being currently vacant) have today issued a pastoral letter in English and Welsh about the future of ceremonies for same-sex couples in the Church in Wales. In it they announce that they will introduce proposals:
to the Governing Body in April 2026 to make the authorisation of Blessings for Same Sex Couples permanent in the life of the Church, and to bring further proposals in April 2027 to allow the law of the state and of the Church to be changed to permit same sex marriage in our Churches.
Read the full (English) text of the letter below.
Provincial news Posted: 20 November 2025
Be devoted to each other like a loving family. Excel in showing respect for each other. (Romans 12.10)
It is an inescapable truth at present that Christian attitudes towards sexual relationships are a matter for deep debate in the contemporary Church, and even threaten to divide the Christian family worldwide. In the listening exercise we have conducted over the last six months, we have heard passionate but gracious discussion. Seeking to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teaching of Scripture, Christians differ in approach: advocates for equal marriage argue from the inclusive love of Jesus, while others highlight faithfulness to the traditional reading of Biblical texts and cannot embrace such new understandings. Yet others discern a middle ground: content to offer blessings, they are not yet ready to abandon traditional teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Whatever people’s convictions on this matter, as your bishops we believe first that this should not be a ‘Church-dividing issue’. We also believe that, as a Church in Wales, we need to take seriously the Word of Scripture on all things, but especially with reference to those scriptural injunctions to bear with one another in love in a time of debate and disagreement.
The Governing Body of the Church in Wales is now approaching the point where it must take major decisions on these matters. Just over four years ago, GB authorised a five-year experimental Rite of Blessing so that same sex couples who had celebrated a civil marriage or partnership could come to Church with their families and friends to seek God’s blessing on their commitment to one another.
As this period comes to a close, the listening exercise conducted by the bishops enabled all who wished to speak to them from across their dioceses, and in Governing Body. In the course of this listening exercise, most of those who spoke did so in favour of the view that the time is right to offer equal marriage to traditional and same sex couples. Nonetheless, there is a strong part of our Church family that finds such a step difficult to hold within their understanding of fidelity to Scripture, and therefore within our common life.
In seeking to discern God’s will, the bishops believe that the right way forward is to offer Governing Body the opportunity to make decisions on behalf of the Church.
We intend therefore to bring proposals to the Governing Body in April 2026 to make the authorisation of Blessings for Same Sex Couples permanent in the life of the Church, and to bring further proposals in April 2027 to allow the law of the state and of the Church to be changed to permit same sex marriage in our Churches. This course of action will allow the Governing Body the chance to decide whether to affirm the provision that has already been made, and to proceed, twelve months later, to consider and decide upon the provision of equal marriage. We hope by this to give to the Governing Body a chance to decide whether as a Church we feel able to meet the aspirations of those couples who have articulated the hope to celebrate their love before God in Church through either or both of these expressions.
In each case, we recognise that deep convictions will still vary on this matter, and that, in seeking to hold the family of God together, those deep convictions of conscience will have to be respected. Any proposals will have to be drafted in a such a way to ensure that no-one is forced to act against their consciences by participating in such provision. At the same time, the longing of many who are in same sex committed relationships to make the commitment of marriage to one another will be given full consideration.
Our motivations in offering this course of action are first, to seek to be faithful to Christ, and to where God may be calling us, but also to seek to meet the aspirations of those seeking marriage; and thirdly, to unite, as far as possible, people of all convictions in a process of discernment and accommodation.
The saying “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity”, which is properly attributed to the sixteenth century reformer, Peter Meiderlin, reminds us of a rule of discernment. As we unite in 2025 as a Church which proclaims the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, we as bishops offer to the Church in Wales our discernment: that we can disagree in charity and yet offer liberty on this matter, and commit ourselves to finding a consensus in discernment on the way in which the Church in Wales can affirm same-sex couples in their commitment to each other before God while respecting diversity of understanding.
+Cherry Cambrensis
+Gregory Llanelwy
+John Abertawe ac Aberhonddu
+Mary Llandaf
+Dorrien Tyddewi
A gracious and welcome letter.
An alternative view is that it is a sad day for orthodox believers in wales. The so called bishops should hang their heads in shame for openly celebrating this path. Was it really necessary?
I think most orthodox believers in Wales will be happy about this. And yes, moving towards justice is always necessary, despite the wails of those who love injustice.
I have found a number of LGBT people of faith over the years but I am offended by your slur of injustice. You choose to corrupt the purity of my Christian faith to uphold your distorted take on what it is to be a true follower of the faith.
Let’s see about injustice shall we? Spiritual, moral and financial decline await the church in Wales. It’s been coming a while. Your “justice” will indeed be costly.
The Gospel is costly, but justice is of the very essence of God and to embrace it is neither moral nor spiritual decline.
As for:
“You choose to corrupt the purity of my Christian faith to uphold your distorted take on what it is to be a true follower of the faith.”
I beg you, please consider the log in your own eye before the mote in mine. Besides, if your faith is pure then nothing I do can corrupt it. In reality, if your faith relies on the unjust treatment of LGBT Christians then it is already corrupt.
I am very sorry for your anger and bitterness for a cause that is not necessarily central to God’s calling on his followers. If My faith is corrupt then I can hold to it even if, in your parallel kingdom, I am an unjust agent. One of us will be disappointed I guess.
Geoff. Can I ask what you have read by people exploring the bible and doctrine from a inclusive perspective?
Yes you may ask.
This may be a joke? Sorry, humour is not easy pick on social media. Geoff, all I know at the moment is that you passionately disagree with my position and others here on sexuality. I do not know on what that is based or even if you have understood my convictions – hence my genuine question. It is the basis for discussion – which is why I come here. Just being told I am wrong gets us nowhere. I have been studying, writing and engaging on this topic since I began my theological studies at a very conservative bible college… Read more »
I certainly don’t intend any discourtesy David. I feel after a number of posts on this thread that any “persuasive “ attempt at agreement will be fruitless. My theological journey has been shaped by the foundations laid over 40 years ago. A spirit filled man with an amazing ministry in South America, bishop David Pyches, used an expression that has remained with me on my journey. When asked how do you really know about The Holy Spirits guiding he replied “ you know in your knower “ . Although rather simplistic and certainly not an academic argument, I follow what… Read more »
Geoff. I was not asking for any arguments. I just asked you – out of genuine interest – what you have read of arguments from an inclusive biblical perspective. Since you have not straightforwardly answered this I incline to the view you have not read any. If that is so then you may know what people like me believe but you will not know how or why we have come to such convictions with our bibles opened. That’s are far as we are going to get here I suspect.
I suspect you are correct David. I have listened to Charlie Bell et al but I tend not to look at arguments for or against as I am not able to be persuaded. I did not come to faith by persuasion or by reading literature. My conversation was through a revelation of God through his Holy Spirit. No church background or Anglican baggage. This led me to accept Christ. I then read and studied at various times, even once considering ordination. My revelation of God in a supernatural sense has led me trust Him and be cautious about revisionist theology… Read more »
‘Orthodox’ believers would respect bishops as the chief shepherds of the flock.
A bishop is a bishop whether your personal opinions are at variance with theirs or not.
Please do not quote Leviticus or another Bronze Age source in rebuttal.
The Bible seems very unbothered about, for instance, slavery.
‘The Bible seems very unbothered about, for instance, slavery.’
Not at all… the bible is deeply committed to the idea of slaves being treated justly and humanely. And in fact this insistence on the dignity of every human being gave moral authority to those seeking to abolish slavery later on. Also worth noting that Gregory of Nyssa condemned slavery as early as the 4th century and the first papal document denouncing slavery was in 1435, four centuries before the slave trade was actually abolished.
When bishops wander away from truth and are no longer shepherds they can no longer be followed. This may appear disrespectful but it is essential in my faith walk.
If you can’t follow someone unless you agree with them about everything you’re going to struggle to stay in any church you’re not leading.
Agreed
Do you mean they wonder away from your opinion?
Did you mean wander? No they don’t wander from my opinion, they wander from their obligation to faithfully lead the flock . When these bishops deviate from biblical teaching and accepted teaching on Godliness they are moving into a perilous position. As leaders they have a greater responsibility . Whatever I write, I am aware that I will never reach agreement with many on TA. Your mind is set. I remain confident in the authenticity of Gods word and direction in these matters. How about you?
TYPO…As I expect you are fully aware.
As a liberal minded person, who continues to seek the truth, my mind is not set, as you firmly assert.
Scripture did not float from heaven on a cloud but needs scholarly study and ‘Sitz im Leben’ interpretation.
I am, sadly, not in radio contact with God and need more than biblical fundamentalism to discern God’s will.
Scripture but with both intellect and tradition passed down work together.
That is quite an Anglican point of view.
I hope I have made no typos this time for you to capitalise on!
No old friend, no typos. Fundamentalism gets a bad press I feel. God bring the same yesterday, today and forever. I will restate: I fully accept LGBT people, they are and have been previously fully accepted in my church and in my family. My understanding of my Christian faith does not permit me to accept that certain sexual practices amongst the LGBT community are singled out for God’s blessing. Holy matrimony is exclusively for one man and one woman. My wife, when in full time ministry, was asked to bless a relationship between an unmarried man and his partner. My… Read more »
You ask why the canons do not permit equal marriage. It is because tracts of the Church are marred by homophobia. God makes some people with blue eyes and some with brown. Some people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, some to the same sex as themselves. People do not chose their sexuality; it is the way each are made by God. How people express their love is not for me to judge nor fret about. Sex is not a spectator sport. Loving relationships should be blessed and honoured by the Church as they are protected and acknowledged by… Read more »
Very overused word I’m afraid. Just because someone takes an opposing view you come straight out with homophobia. The church, you say is homophobic, I am, you say, homophobic. I think you need to review your “go to” accusation and understand what those who care deeply about exemplary living are holding onto.
You need to understand that just because you have a sincere conviction that the church is divinely required to discriminate against gay people doesn’t mean such policies and the advocacy of them is not homophobic. In much the same way that a sincere conviction that black people are subject to the Curse of Ham and divinely appointed to be hewers of wood and drawers of water wouldn’t absolve a church of being racist.
tl;dr homophobic is as homophobic does
But the church is not homophobic. Gay people are welcomed, accepted and treated equally in every aspect of the church with the exception of special blessing and Holy Matrimony. This would go against our justifiably secure doctrine. You join the church and want to change the church. Why you can’t just set up a religious organisation that gives you all you want and get others to join beats me. You seem to want to stay and disrupt those who don’t accept your new interpretation of scripture. Why don’t you let orthodox believers stay and start a new movement?
I am an orthodox believer. Homophobia, however nicely dressed up, is not a marker of orthodoxy. In any case it is not about what I want, it’s about what God wants and, more specifically who and what God loves. I believe that the church has been in error in treating same sex love as sin, just as it was in error in denying to call of women to the priesthood, just as it was in condoning enslavement. In any case, I didn’t ‘join’ the church, at least not in the way you suggest. I was baptised as an infant and… Read more »
There is the answer to your question. God is evidently sinful and He got it wrong. God is in error? After all these years I am enlightened that the church has been in error all along. I guess there is no further point in continuing this exchange as I have been conned by the church and those people who accept scripture at face value have been in error. I guess you will keep going with your revelation of Gods error until you succeed in your quest? I still don’t understand why you stay though if the church has been in… Read more »
I think this is getting very silly and shrill indeed.
I see you’ve “deftly” substituted ‘God’ in place of ‘church’ to erect your strawman. God is not in error; our understanding of God and His will frequently is. Do not the 39 Articles make it clear that churches err?
“Ignoring context” is the more pertinent way of putting “accepting at face value”. Not, of course, that you or anyone else actually does that for all of the Bible, otherwise we’d see a lot more people missing eyes and hands about the place.
I find your arguments very poor I’m afraid. I perceive a dogma that is entrenched. I have decided, as my last two comments have not been posted, to give up on TA. Liberal back slapping at its best.
If my arguments are poor it should be easy to refute them. That you accuse others of being dogmatic is laughable hypocrisy.
I sometimes find my comments are not posted; rather than insinuate bias I tend to assume that I’ve posted something deemed too personal, or the comment simply got lost in the ether.
It’s no wonder the church is sliding into chaos. Me with hypocrisy ( according to your last comment) and you so evidently embracing apostasy it a proper mess.
Disagreeing with you about same-sex relationships is not “apostasy”. Don’t be absurd.
I am afraid it very much is.
I am also not absurd.
Hardly that!
Plenty of conservatives get a full airing!
Truthfully it should never have been on the agenda. It got too far ahead of itself. Hopefully it can be reigned back now the hierarchy have discovered their error and haste to abandon truth.
I think this has gone as far as it can with the “ battle “ lines drawn. So very unnecessary in a failing organisation marred by safeguarding, weak leadership and disregard for spiritual truth. No longer the church that honours God.
If you read my comment, I did not single you out personally as homophobic.
I said that tracts of the Church are marred with homophobia. That is clearly the case.
The word homophobia is used frequently because same sex relationships scare the pants off rather a lot of those who call themselves Christians.
I sense it would be better if there were six rather than five bishops ‘seeking to discern God’s will’ on the major issue of same-sex blessings and marriage. The proposals (outlined in an earlier post) for an Interim Bishop of Bangor to serve possibly up until January 2028, explicitly disqualify that post-holder from voting in the Order of Bishops in the Governing Body and Bench Meetings. This period is co-terminus with the ceremonies for same-sex couples being promulgated, effectively disenfranchising the diocese of Bangor and its bishop from putting its major vote where God’s mouth is. To redress this injustice,… Read more »
On your first point, the obvious counterpoint is that the Interim Bishop is to be selected by the Archbishop; I’m sure many would cry ‘foul’ if that appointment tipped the balance on a vote by Orders in the Governing Body on a controversial issue. On your second point, Acting Diocesan Bishops are not able to vote in the House of Bishops, or as part of the House of Bishops in General Synod (unless they are one of the elected Suffragans). The House has indicated (in minutes from meetings in 2024 and 2025) their desire for this to be changed, but… Read more »
Many thanks, Matt. Nevertheless, Acting Diocesans (paid at a Diocesan’s salary) who are elected members of the General Synod vote in the House of Bishops, never in the House of Clergy. A simple amendment could be proposed at the GB next week that Stipendiary Assistant Bishops become members of the Order of Bishops rather than Order of Clergy. During a debate proposing Assistant Bishops should be ex-officio members of the GB, Canon Joe Griffin quipped that the Assistant Bishop should logically belong to the Order of Bishops: ‘Dur, the clue’s in the name: Assistant Bishop.’ Such an amendment would… Read more »
By my reading the discernment of God’s will about same-sex marriage in church is to be done by the Governing Body of the Church of Wales in 2027. One presumes that the new Bishop will be in place by then.
All the Bishops are doing now is giving notice of that debate.
We hope to live to celebrate our union of 45 years in our own Church.. we have been tempted to return to my father’s home in Glasgow to seek the solemn blessings of the Church, but we will hold out a little longer in keen anticipation that we might receive the sacrament here.
Congratulations, Martin, may the remaining years be blessed beyond your hopes.
Congratulations, Martin, in hopeful anticipation that you will receive the sacrament here in Wales.
I hope your wish to marry in your own church comes true!
Congratulations! I hope you are able to celebrate your relationship and God’s blessings for it in your own church. Nothing feels better than being accepted fully by your own church.
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity”
Why oh Why does an increasingly spiteful, uncharitable and mean spirited Church of England seem incapable of this vision ?
I don’t know, that’s what I live by too. Then again, who determines what’s essential or not, charitable or not.
My thoughts exactly. I especially appreciate the reminders in the document about the Nicene Creed being a sufficient statement of the Christian Faith, as opposed to those who seem to think marriage is an essential doctrine that the church cannot adapt or change.
Much as I love the Nicene Creed, I can’t see a document that skips directly from Jesus’ virgin birth to his suffering under Pontius Pilate—with nothing to say about his radical teaching and his deeds of power in between—as ‘a sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.’
Yes, it’s nonsensical to suggest that Christians can legitimately disagree on anything not mentioned in the Nicene creed, since it contains no ethical teaching. On that basis murder, slavery, theft and lying would all be things Christians could charitably differ about.
Two points, briefly: first, your comment highlights the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral or moral theology — which is at the heart of the present divide in the effort to raise marriage questions into first-order doctrinal issues. Second, in addition to all of the many disagreements as to what constitutes marriage since the first century, there have been differences of opinion among many Christians on the topics you mention, though it is true that the disagreement has not always been charitable.
Judaeo-Christian thought about murder, theft and bearing false witness hasn’t really changed over the last two three millennia. And I’d be dismayed if the leadership of the Church of Wales agreed to charitably disagree with any slave-owning Welsh Anglicans. The last nine of the ten commandments are not in the Nicene Creed, but surely they are first-order doctrine. I support equal marriage. But it should be developed in a considered way, so the Church can gauge, check and see that it is a reflection of the kingdom; and to avoid Corinthian-style disorder in which everyone does what they see fit.… Read more »
As Interested Observer notes, “Judaeo-Christian” opinions on these matters have changed, in some cases diametrically, over the years. The 19th c. arguments over slavery were, for example, fierce, in England as well as America, and religious leaders were divided, and one leading Rabbi and the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church were on the side of defending the morality of slavery! The debates over whether abortion constitutes murder or not are far from settled. As is true with debates over capital punishment and “just war.” The thinking that informed, say, Lambeth Conferences just over the last century reveal many twists… Read more »
Tobias, your answer was within a Eurocentric lens, but entirely valid. One could also look at the issue through a colonial lens
Whilst some Christians see the church’s active involvement in the European colonial project as a good thing, other Christians would have no problems describing that same project as murder, slavery and theft.
If I might add one last thought: the ethical teachings of the Decalogue are not unique to Judaism or Christianity, and can be assented to by completely secular non-believers. This is another reason to distinguish them from “doctrine.”
There is a difference, of course, between positive and natural law. As any philosopher or ethicist knows. One may like to infer naturalism, as you appear to do, but the ground of that is positive law. “I am the LORD your God. You shall have no other gods before me” and only from this follows the posited laws of the entire Decalogue.
Thank you for this. Though to clarify, I am not inferring natural law concerning the decalogue; as these are clearly stated positive laws. What I am noting is that these positive laws are not unique to Judaism, or to Christianity. As such, it is labeling them as “doctrine” that I question, particularly in a Christian context. Anglican divines, such as Hooker, distinguished these from the laws of rites and ceremonies as “the Moral Law” and gave them clear pride of place in their ethical thinking; but I do not think they regarded them as doctrinal, or speaking to properly doctrinal… Read more »
I think you are confusing behaviour with identity. Murder, theft and bearing false witness are moral choices and I think we can agree that they are the wrong choices. I agree with Archbishop Cherry Vann that every human being should be equally welcome at God’s table, ‘God is not in the business of hierarchies’ If you are born deaf or born blind or born with a black skin or born to love someone of your own gender that is not a choice, it is part of your identity. Murder, theft and bearing false witness causes harm to others, being born… Read more »
With a handle like ‘rerum novarum’ you may be interested in the article linked below by Kevin Long, The Nine Commandments: The Decalogue and Natural Law, with references to both Gaudium et Spes and Veritatis Splendor. I don’t think that line of inquiry really gets us very far. Better to concentrate on the connection between updated knowledge on human sexuality and human rights. Of course talk of human rights is not all that well received in churches. That is probably because human rights talk tends to pierce the church’s ‘fantasy island’ bubble with regard to its own public behaviour. Pope… Read more »
“Judaeo-Christian” is a term which belongs to the language of the white supremacism.
“On that basis murder, slavery, theft and lying would all be things Christians could charitably differ about.” “Charitably” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. I don’t think many, at least here, want to argue that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian, but over the past 2000 years it has most certainly taken positions on various things which might now be seen as supportive of murder, slavery, theft and lying. The crusades are the obvious example, but the Valladolid debates were debates precisely because people were taking different positions on slavery. Today, we think it’s obvious… Read more »
They do have a flexible view on such things. A number of contributors here regularly defend the actions of the Israeli regime.
I don’t recall any. Defending the right to the existence of an Israel state does not mean defending the current regime.
What a ghastly thought.
The phrase about the Creed is from the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. It is an attempt to address those doctrinal matters which are considered central to the Faith.
I am aware of that. I simply disagree with the phrase. In the Book of Acts Christianity is called ‘the Way’ or ‘this Way’. What is being described is not a way of believing but a way of living. And we know from some of the descriptions of catechesis in the church fathers that catechumens were required to begin practising the way before they were instructed in the doctrines.
Indeed, but it is the difference between “believing” and “living” I am seeking to note. The former is about doctrine, the latter about that manner of life to which Christians are called. It appears we may actually agree in this distinction between doctrine and discipline.
You seem to misunderstand why the creeds were written in the first place. The fathers at Nicaea were responding to heresy (namely Arianism) so they emphasized Christ’s nature and saving acts rather than other details regarding his earthly ministry. If you want a ‘sufficient statement of the Christian faith’ then you will need to agree on some kind of catechism. Good luck with that in the Anglican Communion.
The BCP catechism served the Cof E well into the 20c. The revised catechism of the 1960s had some importance and is still technically authorised..At various points in my ministry I pushed for a new catechism and sat on a committee in the 80s which produced one. I felt at the time it wasn’t what we really needed but that is another story. I think the Outline of the Faith in the TEC prayer book is not without some merit. But I agree about our present dilemma. Yes a church that cannot put into the hands of an enquirer or… Read more »
‘You seem to misunderstand why the creeds were written in the first place.’
Thank you; I too have had a theological education!
Your comment makes my point for me. Note that Tobias was the one who alluded to the phrase ‘sufficient statement of faith’, not me. I’m arguing (with you) that the Nicene Creed is not a sufficient statement of faith.
Because it has a sense of honour in some of its ranks anyway. God honours those who honour God. It is not mean and spiteful to give a wayward child every it wants. Discipline and Discipleship are the root word. You claim injustice but are spiritually blind to genuine vision in the church. Vision isn’t about getting everything you desire.
And what does it mean to “honour God”? How does Matthew 25.31-end impact on this? Or Micah 6.8? Or perhaps Matthew 6.9-13 — from which we might infer that we honour God when we work for the coming of God’s kingdom here on earth, where the hungry and needy are satisfied and sins and debts are forgiven.
I get the sermon but I am hoping you are not inferring that we honour God by accepting things that God did not intend for us. Or is your point, we have evolved to a point that supersedes Gods original intention for us and to meet His kingdom values we adopt new doctrines of behavioural accommodation?
I would have said that we are redeemed by God’s grace rather than honoured by him in return to honour paid him. However that may be, I would agree that there is no circumventing the question of whether gay sex, even gay intimacy perhaps, is morally right or wrong by talking of charitable disagreement, the development of doctrine and suchlike. If it’s morally permissible it should not be disparaged in any way. If it’s morally wrong it cannot be encouraged or blessed
Should this look likely to come to fruition, perhaps English Churches wishing to follow the Welsh lead should be afforded the same sympathetic liberty to seek alternative oversight by the Welsh bishops that the CofE accords to conscientious objectors over the priesthood of women.
Could the church of Wales start a mission to England? 😉
Please do, the Church in Wales is dying due to its liberalism and lack of zeal for the truths of the apostolic faith, we’d happily feel your Churches with faithful priests.
The Society can’t fill its churches in Birmingham with your faithful priests, George, so I don’t know where you are going to find any spare ones for Wales.
Meanwhile, in 15 years, the ‘Church in Wales’ will be nearly extinct. Such an example to follow…
You forget that any church that is not facing extinction within a generation or two is not doing the Gospel the right way. Only God is eternal.
40 years in the Wilderness is about right. The roads in Wales are terrible.
When I spent some time driving round mid-Wales a couple of years ago I was struck by how VERY much better they were than roads round my way (Hampshire). Far less traffic, of course! Meanwhile, in the Church in Wales too, the tail is being allowed to wag the dog.
I was thinking of the M4 in Wales leading to the banks of the river with the Promised Land beyond. Good news no bridge tolls!
The people of Britain have all but discarded Christianity. There will be a few in 15 years, but in 50……no, I don’t think so.
This is the graphical representation of that unhappy state of affairs
Just as an observation, it’s interesting that the CofE’s FAOC’s (yes, flawed) attempt to do some deeper theological thinking around all this gets a robust panning on TA. While the Welsh Bishop’s letter, which hardly grounds these holy contested innovations with anything like real theological depth, gets about 2 3/4 cheers.
a) the audience on TA is biased
b) deep theological thinking by deep theological thinkers for an audience of other deep theological thinkers has led us nowhere. I think the FAOC total number of words vastly exceeds, for example, the St John Gospel.
c) The FAOC documents did not lead to any ‘actionable insights’ (I hate the phrase).
d) deep theological thinking has been going on for centuries by remarkable people with remarkable insights
e) all the above
Sometimes justice and truth don’t need an essay to say what is evident to anyone with ears to hear.
I think you need to look at the full process. “Just over four years ago, GB authorised a five-year experimental Rite of Blessing so that same sex couples who had celebrated a civil marriage or partnership could come to Church with their families and friends to seek God’s blessing on their commitment to one another. As this period comes to a close, the listening exercise conducted by the bishops enabled all who wished to speak to them from across their dioceses, and in Governing Body. In the course of this listening exercise, most of those who spoke did so in… Read more »
FAOC
‘hotly contested’.
A non-Freudian slip.
“the longing of many who are in same sex committed relationships to make the commitment of marriage to one another will be given full consideration.” Are there actually ‘many’ wanting to do this in church? It seem to be mainly clergy in such relationshops who are going on about it. Firstly, the number of marriages in church is going down very quickly – how many were there in Church in Wales last year? Secondly, same sex partners know the church on the whole is censorious, or at least ungracious, about same sex couples. Who on earth would suffer the indgnity… Read more »
But Dave,
Surely a same-sex marriage is exactly that – prayer, pastoral care and love.
Of course. BUT too much money, time and energy I feel is being spent on the failing LLF process.It has become a farce manipulated by evangelicals and conservative catholics in the C of E. They shame a church founded to serve all the people of England. I believe churches should simply get on with doing blessings insead of agonising. Personally now I would never dream of asking for a church blessing with my partner – I would feel I was asking for something out of the ordinary, questionable and a bit of a problem to the church. Thats not what… Read more »
For the 24 years I was rector of St. Margaret’s Anglican Church, Edmonton, Alberta (ending December 31, 2023), the highest number of weddings I had in a year was six. Most years, it was two or three. The ACoC is not an established church and St. Margaret’s is not a picturesque historic building. Our parish was barely in the wedding business. And so for me, the last few years of the debate around same-sex marriages seemed rather disproportionally centred on weddings. I was never going to be doing a lot of gay weddings, because I wasn’t doing a lot of… Read more »
This is a very significant development. If I understand it correctly, it will require an order by the Lord Chancellor under s8 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (power to allow for marriage of same sex couples in Church in Wales). It is rather more straightforward than the process for changing canon law and repealing the quadruple lock, which would involve Parliament. But this change (assuming the Governing Body progresses it) will raise the inevitable questions in Westminster about the Church of England.
Thanks for the reference. It seems that the Lord C, once satisfied that an authorised request has been made, must issue the appropriate order. This would mean that the disestablished Church is more in accordance with the spirit of the law of the land than the Established Church is
Section 8 is drafted rather more tightly than that. The Lord Chancellor “must make such provision as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate”. In practical terms your interpretation is probably correct. “Must” is, of course mandatory, but section 8 contains other provisions to be met for making the order.
Conservative denominations are in free fall too…the Southern Baptists are down 3 million.
The problem in Wales is indifference…the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.