Prayers of Love and Faith 101

So what did the General Synod actually vote on in November 2023?

Here I explain what the General Synod has and has not done with Prayers of Love and Faith at its last meeting in November 2023. And how it was done. What actually did we vote for? It’s quite complicated so it is probably better experienced as a vaguely amusing video below. But the script underneath if you’d rather read it with a footnote all the way at the bottom.

James, you’re a member of the General Synod of the Church of England and a sitcom writer. Could you explain what’s going with the Prayers of Love and Faith, but in a sitcom-like conversation-style?

It won’t be all that funny because it’s quite complicated and a bit sad. But I can do my best.

So what’s actually happening in the Church of England about same-sex marriage?

Oh, that’s easy. Nothing.

Nothing? It doesn’t sound like nothing.

The Church of England is not changing the doctrine of marriage which is defined in Canon B30 which says:

“The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord's teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

Ah, how romantic. So, is that still the position of the Church of England? Even after the last Synod?

Yes. It will be after the next Synod in February 2024, and the one after that in July and so on. It’ll probably stay that way until at least 2026 and probably beyond, depending on how the next lot of General Synod elections go.

So it’s not been changed?

Yes.

But 44 Bishops signed a letter asking for change. 44 is a lot of bishops. In fact, what is the collective noun for bishops?

I think it’s a bench, but maybe it should be a murmuration. Anyway, let’s not get into that. There was indeed a letter in early November signed by 44 members of the College of Bishops, which is all Diocesan Bishops and Suffragan (assistant) bishops, of whom there are over 100.

That seems a lot of bishops considering the size of the Church of England these days.

Yes, but one for another time. Anyway, in a letter, these 44 bishops didn’t say they wanted to change Canon B30, but they did want to remove:

“all restrictions on clergy entering same-sex civil marriages, and on bishops ordaining and licensing such clergy, as well as granting permissions to officiate.”

Once you’re allowing clergy to be in same-sex civil marriages (rather than civil partnerships as is currently the case), it would be untenable to forbid those clergy from conducting same-sex marriages

Correct. You’re catching on fast.

Well, you’re me. You wrote both sides of this conversation.

Good point.

Why don’t the Bishops just change Canon B30 and say a man can marry a man and  be done with it?

Good question. Their problem is that in unlikely event that it would be even legally possible to change Canon B30, the change would require a two-thirds majority in all three House of the General Synod. So the House of Bishops would need the agreement of The House of Clergy and the House of Laity.

But wouldn’t they get a majority? In November Synod, the Living in Love and Faith motion passed 100-93 in the House of Clergy and 104-100 in the House of Laity.

Yes, but to make a big change like altering Canon law, or changing the agreed Common Worship Liturgy requires a two-thirds majority. So there’s no prospect of changing the Canons, or the liturgy in this quinquennium.

Quinquennium? You’ve just made that up.

I haven’t. A quinquennium is a five-year term office, if you like, for Synod. The last one was six years.

Would that be a sexquennium?

Let’s not get into that.

Hang on. You say the House of Bishops can’t change the liturgy without a two-thirds majority. But isn’t the House of Bishops about to license some liturgy for blessing same-sex couples in church? Isn’t that what this big vote was about?

Yes, it was about that, but no, the House of Bishops claim they are not changing the liturgy. They are ‘commending’ prayers that could be used by a minister at his or her discretion under Canon B5.

“The minister who is to conduct the service may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service authorized by Canon B 1 according to particular circumstances.”

“Which are not of substantial importance”? How can these prayers be considered not of substantial importance? Given that everyone been talking about this for decades, wouldn’t it be fair to see this is of “substantial importance”?

Yes. But the Bishops say that they’re not changing the doctrine of marriage so whatever these prayers are doing, it can’t de facto be of substantial importance.

Talk about circular logic. That’s peak Sir Humphrey Appleby, that is.

My favourite sitcom of all time and yes, when Sir Humphrey is challenged about the contents of the minutes of a highly contentious meeting, he says:

“if the decision had been officially reached it would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials. And it isn't, so it wasn't.”

So, these prayers that are being commended are the Church of England blessing same-sex relationships?

No.

What? Back in February, The Guardian headline said “Church of England votes in favour of blessings for same-sex unions.” And then in November “Church of England backs plans for trial blessings of same-sex weddings.”

Far be it from me to say a newspaper headline is inaccurate, but that’s the nature of headlines. Technically, the prayers don’t bless the union or the relationship. The prayers bless the people in the relationships – celebrate  the good in their exclusive, faithful relationship, according to one reading of Matthew 7:18 in which Jesus says a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

Wasn’t that part of a warning from Jesus about false prophets?

Yes, but no-one seems terribly interested in the context. Or warnings about false prophets.

Isn’t there any way of getting an official theological ruling on all this?

We’re told the Bishops have done plenty of theological reflection.

That would be interesting to read.

I agree. But we’re not allowed to see it. And apparently we have seen it. We are often directed to the Living in Love and Faith material. Which is quite a long book, so the answers must be in there somewhere.¹

But the LLF resources were for discussion. The book laid lots of different viewpoints and opinions.

Yes. That’s right.

(This paragraph is not in the video) To be fair, the ‘theological rationale’ is presented in Annex H of GS2328 which can be found here but you’ll need to scroll a long way down. And you will be very disappointed with what you find there. Judge for yourself if it is any kind of coherent theological rationale for finessing Prayers of Love and Faith without departing from doctrine in ‘any essential matter’.

Isn’t there a special crack team of theologians who can give some kind of agreed standard on what the Church of England should be teaching?

There is. They are called the Faith and Order Commission. They are some theological heavyweights who think about these sort of things. They reported to the House of Bishops.

What did they say?

We don’t know. They didn’t write it down.

Why not?

Hard to say. Maybe they’d found a third letter to the Corinthians that was so explosive, they decided none of us were ready to hear it. So Chattam House rules and all that.

That doesn’t sound very transparent.

That’s okay. The House of Bishops don’t have to be. In fact, there was an amendment was put forward in the big debate asking that:

“the House of Bishops… ensure transparency and openness as further debates and decisions are made” – and it was voted down.

It was voted down?

Yep.

People actively wanted less transparency over these enormous decisions being made.

Yes.

Surely the bishops didn’t vote it down. You’d think they’d have the decency to abstain.

Yes, you would, wouldn’t you. But no, 24 of them voted it down. It didn’t make any difference though. Just over 100 clergy and 100 laity were determined to get these Prayers of Love and Faith through. They even voted against us being able to see the legal advice the House of Bishops received.

Wow. So, the vote went through without theological advice and legal advice. And these prayers you approved can now be used in services?

No. The General Synod didn’t actually approve the prayers. We were just being asked to:

“recognise the progress being made by the House of Bishops towards implementing the motion on Living in Love and Faith passed by the Synod in February 2023.”

Plus a few amendments, one of which was truly stunning.

Is this one from the Bishop of Oxford?

Yes, that’s right. The motion before the General Synod was to approve the House of Bishops allowing the Prayers of Love and Faith to be used during existing Church service.

So you couldn’t have a special service of blessing of a gay marriage – sorry – not the marriage, or the relationship but the people and the good things that come from that same-sex relationship. It would just be part of an existing service in accordance with Canon B5?

That’s right. The plan for those stand-alone services or ‘blessings of same-sex weddings’ as the Guardian calls them, was to go through the proper route, which would require a two-thirds majority in each house. Which it probably wouldn’t get. But it is, at least, doing it properly.

So what was the Bishop of Oxford’s amendment?

“to ask the House [of Bishops] to consider whether some standalone services for same-sex couples could be made available for us, possibly on a trial basis…”

Possibly on a trial basis? It that seriously how it was worded?

Seriously.

But surely the way things are going, there’s no prospect of having stand-alone services and then concluding ‘well, that didn’t work’ and shutting the whole thing down.

Not only that. Imagine trialling the stand-alone services and then the General Synod voting down their use, even though the House of Bishops want to continue with them? Which they could because they’re not changing the doctrine of marriage, remember?

Would that mean the blessing that some would have received would be reversed, or made null and void?

It’s a total mess.

But surely the Bishop of London was against the muddying of the waters and rejected the amendment?

Nope. She accepted it.

So I hope there was a big long debate about this amendment, because this really is massively accelerating the speed of things?

Nope. A few speeches for and against. Then a vote. And it passed. There was one vote in it in the house of Laity. If one ‘for’ had voted against, or both of the abstentions, it would have been voted down.

Wow. And so the amended motion was passed as well. And here we are.

Here we are.

But my vicar doesn’t have to use the prayers, right?

Right. But he or she will be expected to explain themselves to the PCC and anyone that asks. I recommend they send them to their bishop to explain since this is entirely their doing.

So what’s going to happen next?

The House of Bishops will commend these prayers, for which they didn’t need Synod’s permission to begin with because, as you remember they’ve not changed the doctrine of marriage and this is not of substantial importance. I guess we’ll find out if that’s true.

Phew. You made it. So you’ve earned that Yes Prime Minister clip. The bit a quoted is at 2m23s, but why not enjoy the whole clip.

---

Move Your Body

And on a lighter note, here’s the best video you’re going to watch this week. It’s from the new Awesome Cutlery album.

Happy Advent.

---

1. In writing this article, it was pointed out that in GS2328 the House of Bishops placed more emphasis on Canon B5.3

All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.

Is ‘any essential matter’ essentially any different from ‘of substantial importance’? I would argue that essentially these matters are substantially the same, and of equal importance. Although they don’t contradict Canon B30, so that’s fine right? Sir Humphrey would be proud.