Thinking Anglicans

Reactions to House of Bishops announcement

Last updated Wednesday 18 October

Church Times Prayers of Love and Faith to be commended by Bishops, but use is restricted till Synod approves

Church of England Evangelical Council CEEC responds to House of Bishops’ announcement

Church Society Ros Clarke Who wants the Prayers of Love and Faith anyway?

Martin Davie WHAT THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS HAS PROPOSED AND WHY IT IS PROBLEMATIC.

Anglican Network in Europe Not Fit for Office

Premier Christian News  Same-sex attracted CofE leader laments ‘painful ambiguity’ as bishops commend prayer blessings

Andrew Goddard Psephizo Prayers of Love and Faith: what has the House of Bishops done?
This article contains a very detailed analysis of what the statement may mean. Worth reading in full.

See also next TA article about 12 bishops who dissent from the announcement.

Anglican Futures Caution: The Travelator Continues…

Further statement from CEEC responding to the 12 bishops: CEEC welcomes bishops’ dissenting statement

Some bishops have now issued individual statements:

Please do report any other letters, or more direct links for these ones, via the Comments.

Update Tuesday 17 October
CEEC
has issued an e-bulletin to its supporters: page one and page two
(reproduced here as PDFs)

Update Wednesday 18 October
Church Society
has published What are the Prayers of Love and Faith and why do they matter? which links to this PDF.
And there is also this: Editorial: Good Lord!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

15 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Susannah Clark
7 months ago

Aren’t I right to understand – via the opaque communications – that the whole can has been kicked two further years down the road (not withstanding the authorisation of Synod in February)… …and that inside that can are some prayers, but nothing more… no gay marriage in church (the exclusion of gay people from marriage in church has been embedded even deeper by the strong differentiation between ‘matrimony’ in church for straight couples and the civil ‘marriage’ for gay and lesbian couples outside the church)… There just seems to be delay and delay and delay, while people’s lives are happening… Read more »

Last edited 7 months ago by Susannah Clark
Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Susannah Clark
7 months ago

Susannah: This is the official Church record of February’s motion and the voting: https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/prayers-gods-blessing-same-sex-couples-take-step-forward-after-synod Read carefully and dispassionately it will be seen that people (it seems many people) have not understood what was actually decided. Some are under the impression that the prayers have already been introduced: I have read others on the earlier thread who appeared to be saying that they can already be used in a service of Eucharist. What needs to be said, loudly and clearly, is the precise current legal status of the prayers and their use. Today’s further development from the twelve bishops emphasises this… Read more »

FrDavid H
FrDavid H
7 months ago

Ed Shaw, an evangelical minister, is confused. As a young man, he has been happy to embrace, hopefully, a long life of celibacy ahead of him – with its struggles, pitfalls and loneliness. Now he has the choice to meet a partner, fall in love and have his relationship blessed. And he’s unhappy! He would rather have a life of ” bible-based” singleness on the assumption God approves only of happy heterosexual couples. What a strange evangelical God he believes in!

Lottie E Allen
7 months ago

The Bishops are to be commended: they seem to have succeeded in annoying everyone, and left no one happy and content. If their objective is to preserve the Institution of the CofE, and sacrifice truth in the name of unity, then it is going to be a very small congregation that gather in support of this expensive and time consuming mess.

John N Wall
John N Wall
7 months ago

Life is full of ironies — the “Not Fit for Office” piece seeks to lecture Bishops of the Church of England on what it means to be Anglican. But these folks are not Anglican since they are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Just because anyone can claim to be Anglican does not mean they ARE Anglican. Just saying . . . . .

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
7 months ago

Could someone who knows more about how these things work please clarify something for me. If my understanding is correct, prayers for a gay couple using the format of “Prayers of Love and Faith” are to be allowed if used within another service (perhaps the normal Sunday Eucharist) but are not authorised to be used within a stand-alone service until after a complex synodical process. But in a posting on a previous thread Colin Coward said “Anyone who hasn’t already created and used special Services of the Word/Eucharistic rites for same sex couples is failing to use their courage and… Read more »

Last edited 7 months ago by Simon Dawson
Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Simon Dawson
7 months ago

My understanding is that the prayers for LLF have yet to be authorised. Anthony Archer suggests on a previous thread that this is expected to happen soon, probably by a letter or document signed by both Archbishops. See Susannah’s opening comment on this thread and my response that a clear and unequivocal legal statement is needed. My impression is that people have largely jumped the gun, missing the future tense in the announcement that the prayers will be authorised.

I have no knowledge of the other blessing services which you mention.

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
7 months ago

Thanks Rowland. My concern is that we might have actually taken a step backwards, The Prayers of Love and Faith may get limited authorisation, but is there collateral damage because the special services described by Colin, which have been led for decades by supportive priests, might now become more difficult in practise.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Simon Dawson
7 months ago

I have apologised below for my error in referring to authorising rather than commending. It is, indeed, an important difference. It’s possible that there is some misapprehension about discretionary forms of service under Canon B5: it may be that some bishops have tacitly authorised, or turned a blind eye to ones which might be challenged and which they knew about, but there is a potential sting in the tail to Canon B5 which seldom seems to get mentioned: “B5 4. If any question is raised concerning the observance of the provisions of this Canon it may be referred to the… Read more »

Peter
Peter
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
7 months ago

They will not be authorised.

They will be commended by some bishops.

Simon Kershaw
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
7 months ago

The statement from the bishops says that initially the prayers will be “commended”. This is something that the House of Bishops does collectively. At a subsequent stage, so the bishops say, they will bring forward forms of service for full synodical authorization after consultation with the dioceses.

For those who might be unclear on the distinction between “commended” and “authorized”, I am expecting there to be at least one GS paper on this topic published for the November meeting of the General Synod.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Simon Kershaw
7 months ago

Apologies to all for using the wrong terminology, solely from memory which was clearly defective. I don’t discuss or comment on the substantive issues of LLF. All will be revealed if people will be patient.

Perry Butler
Perry Butler
7 months ago

Can the dissenting diocesan bishops not commend them in their dioceses? If so, where does that leave a priest who wishes to use them? And the PEV’s??

Simon Kershaw
Reply to  Perry Butler
7 months ago

I assume you mean “uncommend” or “not-commend” or something similar. I suppose they can, but part of the point of commendation is surely to present a defence against any claim that the cleric is going beyond their allowed discretion. It would make an interesting case if a bishop said “not in my diocese”.

15
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x