Last year, the House of Bishops commissioned the ERG (that's the Episcopal Reference Group, not the better known right-wing European Research Group) to undertake theological work on the nature of doctrine. This week the bishops' ERG published 'a part report' setting out their understanding of marriage, in which they conclude:
"The story of the doctrine of marriage in the Church of England over the last five hundred years, therefore, is one of a high degree of consistency and stability, and yet with some significant developments in understanding and emphasis within the envelope of continuity reflected in Canon B30 and the Prayer Book tradition." (ERG p16)
Their research has led the bishops to accept that this 'doctrinal envelope' is under pressure and they now plan to consult with the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) and Liturgical Commission to determine:
"whether and how that doctrinal ‘envelope’ has been altered or enlarged with the commendation of the PLF";
"whether it is now already a big enough envelope to accommodate some of the other changes that are sought by many within the Church (such as the use of the PLF in bespoke services and a change in discipline regarding clergy and same sex marriage)";
"to consider what kind of size and shape ‘envelope’ could be created if the Church discerned and resolved that it wanted same-sex marriage to be included therein also." (ERG p16)
It is the latter part of the second of these questions which appears to be causing the greatest stumbling block to the implementation of the Living in Love and Faith project.
While there are ongoing discussions about the guidance that will be required to ensure that the "contextual aesthetic" of bespoke services do not “simulate marriage, or pretend that the Church has made a decision to extend marriage” (Proposal Development Commentary 3.3.3), there seems less wriggle room on whether clergy can be allowed to enter same-sex marriages.
It has been reported, that in October 2023, the House of Bishops voted 18-15 in favour of clergy entering same-sex marriages. They delayed implementing that decision and requested further theological study, which, as seen above is still not complete.
Whatever the intention, the work has already resulted in the FAOC expressing "scepticism that a clear distinction between holy matrimony and civil marriage can withstand scrutiny" (FAOC p1) which makes it much harder for the bishops to allow clergy to enter into same-sex civil marriages, while upholding the church's current doctrine of marriage.
This is a real spanner in the works. It is doubtful that progressives will vote in favour of a package which offers conservatives Delegated Episcopal Ministry in exchange for bespoke services of blessing for same-sex couples alone.
In an attempt to square the circle, the FAOC also considered "other aspects of marriage to inform and inspire ongoing reflection and deliberation within the Church of England, providing a nuanced framework for understanding the complex interplay between holy matrimony, civil marriage, and same-sex marriage." (FAOC p1)
However, after more than thirty pages of careful analysis FAOC can only conclude:
"In light of that survey, the paper has sought to model alternative paths of moral theological reasoning in respect of some of the key questions facing the Church of England. While these are not exhaustive or comprehensively representative, it is hoped that, by setting them forth to this extent, they may inform and inspire the pursuit of deep and careful mutual understanding between those of different convictions on these questions, and so some clarification of where differences lie and how their significance may be understood." (FAOC p118)
It seems that the more the theologians theologise the greater and clearer the differences created by "alternative paths of moral theological reasoning" become.
As the ERG conclude many believe the current envelope is "spacious enough to include same sex couples in its ambit", while others are convinced that further change will "tear the ‘envelope’ of a God-given institution." (ERG p16)
None of this should come as surprise to anyone who listened to the earliest debates around Living in Love and Faith. It's not just a question of how much can be stuffed in the existing 'envelope' - but the recognition that affirming same-sex marriage, of any form, is an entirely new envelope altogether.
What these papers reveal is that, as many have said, the decisions that Synod have been encouraged to make by the House were entirely unprincipled because they preceeded the theological work that that they claimed to embody.
Perhaps it is time for the bishops to admit the whole LLF project has been repeatedly re-designed on the back of numerous envelopes, none of which were ever given the final stamp of approval or reached any meaningful destination.
Anglican Futures offers practical and pastoral support to faithful Anglicans
If you would like to hear more:
subscribe to our regular emails