There are many reasons why the introduction of standalone services and same-sex blessings should be rejected. The author of this blog argues that allowing this innovation is against the foundational documents of the Church of England.
Article 20 of the 39 articles reads as follows:
"THE church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation."
This effectively means that it is perfectly appropriate for the prayer book to be brought into modern English and made understandable in 21st-century society. However, the 39 Articles set limits as to what else the Church can do, and those limits are scriptural because the Anglican church has always understood everything to be under the authority of Scripture.
It is widely accepted that the bible talks in a negative way about active sexual relations between people of the same gender, for example, the Church of England's own "Living in Love and Faith" book acknowledges:
"However, some texts in Scripture have been identified as particularly relevant to debates on sexuality and gender issues and have therefore been prominent in church debates. Although small in number, these texts are all negative towards the sexual behaviour they describe and they have traditionally been seen as demonstrating a straightforward, consistent biblical witness against all same-sex sexual activity." [1]
Nowhere does the bible say that having feelings towards someone of the same gender is a greater sin than any other, instead, what is condemned is an active sexual lifestyle between people of the same gender. If we accept this, then any service which seeks to bless such a relationship is contrary to Scripture, and no matter what Synod, the House or College of Bishops or anybody else in the church says, the Church does not have any power to authorise such a service under Canon B5, Canon B5(a) or any other canon.
The Bishops, however, appear to believe that their power to direct or influence the behaviour of clergy and others in the church exists independently and can therefore contradict the Bible's teachings. This is a misunderstanding for 2 reasons:
First, the scope of someone's authority is limited to the area of the authority given to them by God. Wives are urged to "be submissive to your own husbands" - not to all men (1 Peter 3:1; Ephesians 5:22-25) - and in the context of their husband loving their wife "as Christ loved the church". Citizens are called to be "subject to the governing authorities" but there is a caveat, in that, "rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad" (Romans 13:1-3). If husbands demand their wife does something ungodly, or rulers become a "terror" to good behaviour, they have stepped outside their God-given jurisdiction. God does not require obedience to leaders when they they step outside the legitimate sphere of their jurisdiction.
By seeking to authorise these services which are contrary to Scripture, the bishops have overstepped the authority God has given to them.
Second, English bishops have misunderstood their place within the church. They do not have Apostolic authority, as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches understand. They have no unilateral power to legislate for the Church of England. On the contrary, the Articles and Canons of the Church define and limit their power. They officiate within their particular church rather than over it. As one ecclesiastical lawyer put it:
"Thus, any 'Apostolic' authority vests in the church as a whole, not in the bishops alone. The most that can be said is that the bishops have the largest single share of this authority."[2]
By seeking to authorise these services without a two-thirds majority, the bishops have overstepped the authority that the Church of England gives them. Their directions regarding prayers of love and faith are presumptive at best.
Jonathan Camire said of the 39 Articles "They remind us not to give our culture more authority than the Word of God, and they set boundaries that highlight teachings that stray from what the Bible actually says."[3]
Article 20 should be a roadblock to what the bishops can do. Their determination to plough on with the project points to an appalling misuse of power.
[1] Living in Love and Faith p283
[2] The Constitutional Doctrine of the 39 Articles by Philip Jones
[2] 3 Reasons Why Anglicans Should Read the Thirty-Nine Articles JUNE 5, 2018 https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-reasons-anglicans-read-thirty-nine-articles/
Thanks to Jamie Street at Unsplash for the image.
This blog points out the arrogance of most of the current bishops. Their lack of humility is reminiscent of the Sadducees, about whom Jesus said, "they know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God".
I have long wanted to be a part of the Church of England, not least because it is the church to which most of the general population gravitate at times of national stress, like the death of our late Queen. However, I do not see how it can be possible for an ordinary, orthodox man in the pew to remain within the Church of England when its leaders are so obviously determined, like the Gadarene swine, to rush over the cliff into apostasy. The sooner…