The Church of England’s turmoil over same-sex marriage continues. With the resignation in November of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, the latest development in the long-running saga is another delay by the bishops in bringing in standalone services to bless same-sex couples – services that will closely resemble same-sex weddings.
How did we get here? A brief recap. Lacking the votes in General Synod to bring in the full-scale changes all at once, 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 – for use in ordinary church services.
Originally the idea was then to bring in the standalone services using the proper, legally secure route i.e. under Canon B2 (the canons of the Church being its governing rules). But in July 2024 that plan unexpectedly changed and the bishops and General Synod voted (narrowly) to bring in standalone services for an ‘experimental period’ under the same non-legally-secure route used to bring in the ordinary-service prayers (i.e. under Canon B5). The commencement of that experimental period has now been delayed, probably into 2026.
The question many conservative Anglicans are asking, though, is why, if the ‘B5’ route is not legally secure, aren’t the PLF prayers being subjected to some sort of robust legal challenge?
It’s a good question. The Alliance – a group of church leaders representing congregations estimated to amount to over a third of the CofE’s usual Sunday attendance – wrote to the bishops in July 2023 denouncing their approach as “unlawful, unconstitutional and illegitimate”.
This seems to imply a legal challenge will be forthcoming. So where is it?
One difficulty is that the CofE’s route for challenging innovations on doctrinal grounds is not 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 necessary to go down that road though. That’s because the non-legally-secure B5 route used to introduce the PLF contains a provision that simply allows any bishop to issue binding directions to the clergy in his or her diocese that they may not use the prayers. This is because the B5 route really just allows individual clergy to use their own discretion to introduce innovative prayers (the clue is in the title: it’s headed ‘Of the discretion of ministers in conduct of public prayer’). It’s then up to their bishop to take a look at what they’re doing and decide if it’s okay.
So why aren’t the conservative bishops doing that? Why aren’t they looking at what their liberal clergy are doing and saying, ‘Hang on a minute, that’s contrary to our doctrine of marriage, stop it now’?
After all, such robust action would be a very powerful challenge to that mischievous majority of bishops who have effectively tried to bypass the proper process for bringing in same-sex blessings. Imagine if a number of dioceses with conservative bishops banned the new prayers because they are contrary to the Church’s teaching on marriage – making clear at a stroke exactly how legally unsafe the route the majority tried to use was. As well as being worthwhile in its own right, this creation of PLF-free dioceses would be a precursor to the eventual formation of a separate space in the CofE for those of orthodox faith, one of the key goals of the Alliance.
The problem faced by a bishop who wants to try to do this, however, is that the bishops voted nationally to ‘commend’ the prayers. Doesn’t this overrule any individual bishop who wants to direct otherwise?
Not at all. For the truth 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 just 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 an individual bishop, or group of bishops, from taking a different view to the majority and directing their clergy otherwise. A majority of bishops might wish to claim that the PLF are in conformity with doctrine, but their colleagues are not obliged to agree, and under the Church’s canons it is each bishop who is charged with issuing directions under Canon B5 in his or her diocese. What the majority of bishops might think is really 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’s not hard to see why such advice must be wrong. After all, if this was the case then it would make such a ‘commendation’ a way of turning B5 into a legally secure route, doing away with the need for the proper B2 process for introducing liturgy. This is obviously not what the process is designed for, nor how it is written. The point of B5 is to allow individual clergy to innovate under the direction of their bishop; it is not to allow a majority of bishops to gang up on their orthodox colleagues and bypass B2.
Where does this leave us? A wayward majority in the House of Bishops has introduced same-sex blessings under a route that is not legally secure. Because it is not legally secure, conservative bishops have it within their power to ban such blessings in their dioceses. This is desirable in itself and also a precursor to creating a space within the CofE for orthodox Christianity to flourish. The conservative bishops need to stop listening to those whispering otherwise and start making it happen.
Dr Will Jones is a trustee of Anglican Mainstream.
