The Church of England issued the following press release this morning.
Draft prayers of thanksgiving, dedication and for God’s blessing for same-sex couples published
20/01/2023
Prayers asking for God’s blessing on same-sex couples as they give thanks for their civil marriage or civil partnership are published today.
The draft texts, proposed by the bishops of the Church of England, will be considered by General Synod next month alongside other proposals in response to a six-year process of listening, learning and discernment on questions of identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage known as Living in Love and Faith.
The bishops have also made a direct public apology to LGBTQI+ people for the way in which the Church has rejected or excluded them, admitting: “We have not loved you as God loves you, and that is profoundly wrong.”
The apology is set out in a pastoral letter from the bishops of the Church of England which also recognises that they disagree over same-sex marriage and proposes a way forward which could be put in action within months.
A report – Living in Love and Faith: A response from the Bishops of the Church of England about identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage – sets out the bishops’ proposals and recommends areas for further work.
There is also a book of draft worship resources – Prayers of Love and Faith. It is a range of prayers and readings which could be used in a church service, such as a Service of the Word or a Service within a Celebration of Holy Communion.
There are prayers of thanksgiving and dedication and a prayer for God’s blessing as well as prayers for use with specific elements of a service, such as a Prayer when Rings are Worn and Prayers at the lighting of a candle.
Opening the letter the bishops write: “We want to apologise for the ways in which the Church of England has treated LGBTQI+ people – both those who worship in our churches and those who do not.
“For the times we have rejected or excluded you, and those you love, we are deeply sorry.
“The occasions on which you have received a hostile and homophobic response in our churches are shameful and for this we repent.
“As we have listened, we have been told time and time again how we have failed LGBTQI+ people.
“We have not loved you as God loves you, and that is profoundly wrong. We affirm, publicly and unequivocally, that LGBTQI+ people are welcome and valued: we are all children of God.”
Describing the prayers and readings, they explain: “This resource will offer clergy a variety of flexible ways to affirm and celebrate same-sex couples in church, and will include prayers of dedication, thanksgiving and for God’s blessing.”
They continue: “This resource will represent a significant move that is intended as a loving and celebratory response to same-sex couples who are cherished and deeply valued by the Church.”
They explain that the prayers will be entirely discretionary and that the formal teaching of the Church of England as set out in the canons and authorised liturgies – that Holy Matrimony is between one man and one woman for life – would not change.
“While there is a range of convictions held by the bishops about this important matter, we have not found sufficient consensus to propose a change in doctrine at the present time,” they write.
The bishops’ proposals will be discussed in detail at General Synod which meets at Church House, Westminster, from February 6 to 9.
The Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, who chaired the group which led the process of discernment and decision making, said: “We are so grateful to the thousands of people across the Church of England who have taken part in this unique exercise in listening and learning together.
“I would like to thank all those who took part, sharing often deeply personal experiences, with great patience and courage.
“This has shown us vividly the diverse beliefs and hopes that are found among those who call the Church of England their spiritual home.
“We have taken all of those responses to heart and they have been vital in helping shape the proposals which we are putting forward today.”
More information
Synod will debate the Following motion on February 8:
‘That this Synod, recognising the commitment to learning and deep listening to God and to each other of the Living in Love and Faith process, and desiring with God’s help to journey together while acknowledging the different deeply held convictions within the Church:
(a) lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to LGBTQI+ people and the harm that LGBTQI+ people have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church;
(b) recommit to our shared witness to God’s love for and acceptance of every person by continuing to embed the Pastoral Principles in our life together locally and nationally;
(c) commend the continued learning together enabled by the Living in Love and Faith process and resources in relation to identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage;
(d) welcome the decision of the House of Bishops to replace Issues in Human Sexuality with new pastoral guidance;
(e) welcome the response from the College of Bishops and look forward to the House of Bishops further refining, commending and issuing the Prayers of Love and Faith described in GS 2289 and its Annexes;
(f) invite the House of Bishops to monitor the Church’s use of and response to the Prayers of Love and Faith, once they have been commended and published, and to report back to Synod in five years’ time.’
First of all, to set all this in perspective, the voice of Jayne Ozanne today: “We’ve had years of apologies. We’ve had apology after apology after apology and this one frankly, sounds hollow and cruel. Because if you apologise and then carry on with the abuse, it is akin to domestic abuse. The fact that the bishops don’t see that is what angers me.” The core issue of discrimination – the respect due to our marriages, like everyone else’s… in the Church… remains unchanged. Our marriages are not accepted as what God ordains for the Church. It’s like: “We apologise… Read more »
These apologies are absolutely meaningless given that the speakers of these words CONTINUE to do harm and be unwelcoming to LGBTQ+ people and our families.
So what would the effect of Synod *not* approving the motion? It’s clear that it is the House of Bishops, not the Synod, which are going to replace Issues and approve the Prayers of Love and Faith. So, if the vote fails, that all still goes ahead? And it’s a simple majority needed, not a super-majority?
On first rushed reading, that all feels like a big ‘nothing burger’. . So these are prayers which are explicitly not about marriage: no vows and no mention of sex. In fact, by approving this set of resources, it makes it more likely that clergy who previously might have adapted material from the marriage service for use with same-sex couples are likely to be found to be in breach of canon law (ignorance, or protest that there were no authorised or commended liturgy or prayers to use, will no longer be a possible excuse). . ‘Blessing’, we are told, does… Read more »
2/2 The most interesting (weird and incoherent) bit is the discussion of the difference between civil marriage (what the state does), and holy matrimony (what the church does), on page 7. The report says they are now different in nature. . So the report says “It can be argued that a same-sex couple entering into a civil status which does not claim to be Holy Matrimony should not of itself be regarded as challenging or rejecting the Church’s doctrine of marriage as expressed in Canon B30 (Of Holy Matrimony), and that those who do so should not, therefore, be regarded… Read more »
Very many thanks for this analysis. I suspect these proposed rites will frustrate liberals and conservatives alike. The keystone in the arch of Christian marriage doctrine is the principle of the union of ‘one flesh’ (viz. Gen. 2:24 or 1 Cor. 6:16). It is this which has informed much of the Church’s attitudes to divorce and remarriage, to legitimacy, and to kindred and affinity. In 1907 the ‘Hughligans’ advanced ‘conservative’ arguments against Herbert Gladstone’s Deceased Wife’s Sister’s bill, and they made considerable play of the one flesh principle. In their eyes, if a man married the sister of his late… Read more »
This does seem to be a bit of fancy footwork in order to avoid a legal conflict. It’s a bit humpty-dumptyish in the manner of “this is so because we say so.” The traditional understanding has been that what the church imparts in matrimony is its blessing and witness; that the marriage is made by the couple to and with each other. So by imparting its blessing and witness to a civil marriage, the church (of England) is doing exactly what it has always done.
It seems to me quite clear. It isn’t what some people want, though.
Hi Unreliable Narrator, that may be true of much of the document but I genuinely find the material on “Marriage, the State and the Church of England” presented in the box on the middle of page seven unclear, irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with the broader set of proposals – and I would have thought that traditionalists will too. So I genuinely welcome explanation from anyone as to what this section means theologically and legally.
I thought it was clear. The document acknowledges that there is now a radical divergence between civil marriage and the traditional teaching of the church on holy matrimony. Civil marriage is a legal status conferring legal rights and responsibilities on (almost) any two people which they may voluntarily enter into and equally voluntarily leave after certain legal formalities. Holy matrimony is an indissoluble spiritual status voluntarily entered into by a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual personal support and the procreation of children. The divergence was already widening over the issue of marriage of legally divorced people,… Read more »
I would have thought that makes the solution simple – separate the legal and religious parts, similar to France. Remove the rights of any religion to undertake legally binding marriages. I would then let the religions have whatever rites they want for whoever they want. If you want to be legally married, get legally married. If all you want is a church wedding, then you can have that, but you don’t get the protections of legal marriages. Churches can opt to be an authorised location, but would be required to act as any other venue and allow *any* wedding to… Read more »
Of course, I say that Synod should vote no. But in fact (as has already been made clear) the Bishops will implement these proposals anyway, whatever Synod says (much as they implemented GS2055 when Synod rejected in 2017). So there’s not a lot of point.
The bishops talk about “committing ourselves to respecting the disagreement, in conscience” of those with different views. Well they fail to do so. They continue to impose one conscience upon everyone else’s consciences. They could have ‘allowed’ priests or church communities freedom of conscience on the issue of gay sexuality and marriage. Instead, on the key issue of marriage being offered to all, they have chosen to keep imposing a conservative uniformity on everybody. That disrespects the consciences of many, many people and churches. Everybody has to accept marriage the conservative way in church. That is not respect for conscience.… Read more »
Charles and Susannah, I believe that offering official liturgical resources represents modest progress, though the failure to commit collectively to seeking greater equality is deeply disappointing, even if proposals might not yet get through Synod. I recognise that some bishops really are committed to change and believe that it will come, through the workings of the Spirit despite the failings of institutional churches. But the passages you quote in the accompanying response are worrying and may seem to be in tension with other passages, e.g. on celibacy. And the possibility of going backwards on the inclusion of trans people is… Read more »
Or just start lobbying the Westminster Parliament to bypass synods and give their graces a choice: either it passes the necessary canons itself (and while it’s at it, have English bishops submit themselves to free and fair elections as do their colleagues in other provinces), or else it disestablishes the CoE. Either it’s a church for the nation or it isn’t.
Savi, the bishops justify not changing the conservative status quo on gay marriage in Church because of lack of ‘consensus’. There will never be ‘consensus’. Not in ten years. Not in twenty years. General Synod will remain a divided talking shop on these issues. The real leadership and change has to occur at grassroots level, with local church communities saying ‘We are not prepared to accept this’, and to act on that. It’s in the hands of local churches. Their conscience and care for LGBT people can continue to be dominated by the status quo, with the harm many churches… Read more »
Susannah, I believe that at some point there will be be a large enough majority in all three Houses to allow equal marriage which is recognised in law, though further grassroots action may be needed first, of various kinds. A clearer lead by the bishops would have speeded up this process but this seems unlikely. Other churches have achieved change on the basis of respect for conscience amidst theological diversity and I reckon the C of E will get there eventually, though the pace is frustratingly slow.
Firstly, these resources were not produced over the course of two days. They have been weeks, if not months, in the works. The decision not to change the teaching on marriage was therefore taken well before Christmas. Secondly, there is no mention of marriage in the prayers, so they aren’t a blessing of a marriage (or even a civil partnership) as trailed on Wednesday. Once again we get less than we were led to expect. Notably the apology also mentions homophobia but not transphobia. The document is a complete betrayal in relation to trans and intersex Christians. At that, on… Read more »
This is very concerning and needs to be rejected: “Whilst we are very concerned by the bitterness of debates about gender identity we believe that paying close attention to our baptismal identities will encourage vibrant and theologically rich challenges for everyone, and may offer a prism through which the Church can encourage wider society to model a deeper and more loving understanding of human difference.” That’s tantamount to saying that if someone has been baptised as male (or female) that is their lifelong identity so far as the church is concerned. That is massively regressive. None of the bishops who… Read more »
I share your concerns, Kate. As we observe the wreckage of LLF, and the way the bishops caved in to social conservatives on the key issue of gay marriage, it worries me that those same conservative ‘influencers’ will feed the bishops regressive ideas on gender identity. In some ways, the door is being opened to ‘culture wars’, and those (like fanatical feminists) who are fundamentally opposed to trans people, who they caricature as guys role-playing in frocks, living out parodies and stereotypes of women, but actually being guys. (There will be equivalent opposition to trans men as well.) These kind… Read more »
I’m sadly unsurprised by that (lack of) response.
If they do compound the hurt caused by backtracking, well, it illustrates just how morally bankrupt and driven by realpolitik this “process” has become. I truly hope they don’t.
Maybe the authors meant is the sense that baptism breaks down all barriers and transcends human differences as each is affirmed as a member of Christ, child of God and inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven – but, if so, this should have been made explicit.
I don’t see that referring to “baptismal identity” implies what is suggested here. Baptism regenerates us, so provides us with a new identity in Christ. He knows us, and He knows us for what we truly are.
The report specifically states that questions of identity do not yet have the theological groundwork.
I was under the impression that my baptismal identity was summarised by Galatians 3:27-28, which is indeed a theologically rich challenge for those who reject trans identities.
This reads like words of an abusive partner – ‘I’m so sorry I hurt you, I have changed, we can make this work….’ until the next time someone is psychologically and physically beaten down and hurt. Why the past tense ‘We have not loved’? It should say ‘We don’t love you as God loves you’. That would be truthful and not cheap words to make things look better than they are. There is a saying ‘Put up or shut up.’ Time to shut up and stop these pious platitudes. If there must be words at least be honest and say… Read more »
Rejoice. O happy day.
At long last we can look forward to Parliament taking back control and putting the rights of parishioners first.
This may very well prove the most significant ray of hope for the Church since the Ganeral Synod came into existence in 1970.
Yes indeed!
As I understand it, the Nordic legislatures pass the necessary laws for their own national churches. Either the CoE’s a state church or it isn’t: and if it isn’t, it needs to give up all those trappings that certain of its episcopate and clergy (by no means all) seem to enjoy so much.
Not going to happen. In principle that would be make us like China. In reality it would mean the Church disestablished. MP’s cannot dictate doctrine.
Can’t they? Admittedly a while ago now, but the Westminster Parliament defeated an attempt to change the 1662 Prayer Book in the 1920s, and far more recently, the Folketing voted for equal marriage in Danish churches in 2012. Denmark’s undoubtedly a liberal democracy, but she also has a state church, and her legislature has no qualms about altering its doctrines.
So long as the CoE is by law established, not only do MPs and Peers have the right to decide its doctrines, but in situations such as this, I’d argue that they have a clear duty to do so.
If a future parliament, full of atheists deemed it right to change church doctrine to say God did not exist, would that be OK?
Disestablish now, l say. Lose the bishops from the House of Lords? Oh dear, never mind.
That’s pretty much the question Thomas Moore asked (could Parliament pass a law making God not God?). Technically it could, but it’d be a nonsense.
Personally I’m a secularist, but so long as a state church is maintained, the legislature should take an active role in its doctrines, or else it’s established in name only.
The Liberal Unionist constitutional theorist A. V. Dicey once remarked, famously, that parliament had the power to declare that black is white in law, and vice versa. However, a consensus has been building that this absolutist doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is almost spent, and would be difficult to assert effectively in the current jurisprudential climate. See here an example of a recent discussion on this theme: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/01/18/carwyn-jones-is-dicey-dicey/. The argument can also be made that the Church is largely disestablished already, as the ‘privileges’ it receives are largely cosmetic, and (in fiscal terms at least) are no greater than that of… Read more »
As an aside, if we are quoting 19th century constitutional theorists, one could also cite “Parliament can do anything except make a man a woman and a woman a man” Jean Louis De Lolme. Except it has! Whether the church can or should is of course slightly different….
It would be no more or less ok than if a future General Synod did so.
This BBC item will not have escaped your attention I hope?
Just gets better!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64342940
According to social media the Archbishop of Canterbury has announced that he will not personally use these new CofE prayers of blessing for gay couples. His ‘self-denying ordinance’ is justified as being necessary to maintain ‘unity’ within the global Anglican Communion. So we have yet more spineless fudge in support of a unity that all know to be an illusion.
Yes. So the Archbishop says we are sorry for excluding you, here are some prayers to help you feel included, and follows this by immediately saying, I of course won’t be using them.
I agree. The bits of the Communion that be enraged will be enraged regardless of what he personally does. He can’t detach his episcopal role in England from his primacy in the AC, so it makes no sense for him not to be willing to bless same-sex couples if he can, in conscience, do so. And it appears he could. Get on with it, man!
A further example of a refusal to face the obvious, unreconcilable divisions within the community; Jonathan Sacks faced the same problem when, refusing to officiate at Hugo Gryn’s funeral for fear of the haredi community, he alienated the Reform and failed to gain support from ultra orthodox.
Prayers of thanksgiving and dedication are already permitted – as in the advice to the clergy issued by the Chancellor of the Diocese of London in 2008. I suppose that the HOB is publishing material means they acknowledge that but is it any more than that?
Absolutely correct Brian – this represents no advance on the status quo, except that (in my view) it probably narrows the scope for clergy or couples to write/adapt their own prayers and liturgies (use these commended prayers or be in breach of canon law!)
I had no expectations of any change coming from the whole LLF circus. We had been told over and over again that the Church needed “radical inclusion” while at the same time being reminded by Lambeth Palace that nothing would change. Substantial change will not come until the conservatives have changed their minds and decided that we are human (snowflake’s chance in Hell comes to mind), or they are all nourishing roses at the crematorium. The CofE has long been held hostage by conservative Evangelicals simply because they deliver the financial goods that keep the Church afloat. Money talks, always.… Read more »
“The CofE has long been held hostage by conservative Evangelicals simply because they deliver the financial goods that keep the Church afloat.” How is your church, David, avoiding benefiting from the financial generosity of such churches? I guess you wouldn’t what to be tainted by their generous giving!
Being as the overwhelming evidence shows that churches which have liberalised on this issue have steeply declined, why do you presume that liberalising doctrine on same sex marriage would have the opposite effect on the Church of England? Why do you assume the nation wants the Church to liberalise? I see no evidence for this.
If a Labour govt disestablishes the Church of England, there will be even less chance of it becoming more liberal, as a lot of the pressure to do so is secular.
Evidence shows that pretty much all churches have declined, unless they receive injections of new members from elsewhere in the world. Even in parts of the world that report growth (such as Nigeria) it is a result of births in the context of a rapidly increasing population. No historically Christian country, whether its major churches are liberal or conservative, is making inroads in converting its population.
I think it depends how you measure it.
If you mean full engagement then you are right. However, if we consider a church as the focus of a belief-community, many of whom rarely actually visit, then I think liberal churches are more successful. Which is more valuable is again subject to a difference of opinion. Personally I favour the latter.
Here in the US, young people are leaving “the church” in droves precisely because they perceive that “the church” is homophobic, transphobic, etc. Plus, some of ours are viewed as Christo-fascist, which is well-earned. The TEC churches that are growing, or holding on, tend to be the liberal ones.
Regardless, our societies are growing increasingly secular for reasons that go beyond our favorite narratives on LGBTQ+ people.
https://twitter.com/LiverpoolParish/status/1616445511740915712?t=qiS4wrKZVLvABEUM_JO95A&s=19
Liverpool Parish Church has declared UDI and will bless “marriages”.
That’s not how I read their statement, I think they are simply saying they will offer blessings as and when the proposed changes are brought in. Not however using the terminology of “covenanted relationships”.
Cantuar’s position is untenable.
Which is more important–shepherding his English flock? Or being “primus inter pares” in the Communion?
Now we know.
Parliament should respond.
Oh dear- it wasn’t a good week for the C of E and discrimination was it? I read the first thread on the ‘leak’ and my heart goes out to all those who have been so badly hurt by this, not least because they thought something might change. I began to follow this site because I wanted to express my amazement and indignation about the elevation of Philip North last week, and Martine Oborne’s dignified article in the Guardian points out so clearly why it was wrong . At that stage I was still wondering why on earth the established… Read more »
Celibacy for gay priests, and what happens when they enter civil marriages is still unresolved. But reading carefully, on the basis of what they have said so far, I wonder if the Bishops could be preparing to develop an argument along these lines: . Civil marriage is not the same of holy matrimony, even though it confers similar legal benefits. Therefore entering a civil marriage does not in and of itself imply a challenge to or rejection of the church’s doctrine of marriage. Couples who do so are therefore able to have prayers of thanksgiving and blessing in church afterwards… Read more »
I know that conservative commentators like Ian Paul occasionally pop up on this website, and it would be interesting to know if he thinks that something along the lines above is the intended direction of travel, and whether it would withstand legal challenge? . That is, without placing the issue before the General Synod, could the House of Bishops issue a statement in six months time which (after much waffle, talk of walking together, encouraging holiness, faithfulness, respect for disagreements and individual conscience, etc. etc.) concludes that gay clergy who enter civil marriages will not be deemed to be in… Read more »
I can fully see your line of argument, and it would get rid of the obscene nonsense of bishops prying into the bedrooms of priests and so forth. Nevertheless does it not still deny to faithful Christians the spiritual strength and joy of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony? I get how this covers the legalities, but for, say, a priest whose whole ministry involves the administering of the sacraments, surely this would still be a rejection by the church.