Church of England - same sex liturgy

Below is a one side of A4 summary of a longish post on the Psephizo blog about the Church of England and its current debate/directions on a same sex liturgy

Photo by Grant Whitty on Unsplash

one side of A4 Summary

1)    There are differences within the church on what our approach should be to same sex relationships.
 
2)    Across those differences there is commitment to the church being a holy community that:
 
a)    expresses God’s love to the world;
b)    welcomes everybody;
c)     calls people to turn to God in faith and to grow in relationship with one another and with God;
d)    believes God speaks through the Bible, guiding, challenging, correcting and encouraging us;
e)    enables people to recognize their sin, repent and receive forgiveness;
f)      calls people to a costly journey of discipleship involving self-denial, discipline and restraint.
 
3)    On same sex relationships our disagreement is about what:
 
a)      we hear God saying to us about the pattern of a holy life;
b)      we recognise as sin and so repent of and be forgiven for;
c)      the disciplines and forms of self-denial and restraint THAT we are called to.
 
4)    So, what is the national church currently saying as regards loving, committed relationships and sexual conduct?  From February 2023’s General Synod it appears to be:
 
a)    No sex outside marriage between a man and a woman;
b)    Committed same-sex relationships (for example a civil partnership) are permitted but they are not marriage and therefore should not be sexual;
c)     Committed same-sex relationships should not claim to be marriage
 
Since at least 1991’s Issues in Human Sexuality the above teaching:
 
d)    has not been enforced by disciplinary means on lay people;
e)    has expected that clergy (and in places also licensed lay ministers and other lay leaders) order their lives according to the above teaching given the nature of their calling and vows at ordination.
 
5)    So, the options facing the church are:
 
a)    stick with 4a-c);
b)    develop something different within the current doctrine (of marriage and, for the pastoral guidance, of ordination);
c)     develop something different detached from the current doctrine (explicity or implicitly);
d)    develop a new ethic out of a new doctrine that replaces 4a-c) or can be held alongside such.
 
6)    It appears our church disagrees what developments, if any, there should be in our doctrine or ethic or liturgy or pastoral guidance.  And the dilemma is whether the church should proceed on the basis of a majority however small and however unhappy and large the dissenting minority proves to be.
 
7)    Even if there were further and stronger consensus, existing structures and orderly processes would need to be developed for those who conscientiously and passionately convinced the current doctrine, ethics, liturgy and pastoral guidance should remain the same OR are in need of development.  Options for such developments might be:
 
a)      diocese develop their own approach if their synod strongly agrees to such;
b)      a separate religious society is formed for those who do want change;
c)      develop a new province within the CofE for those who want change.
 
(Obviously options a) to c) might alternatively be used for those who don’t want any developments)
 
8)    And taking text directly from Andrew Goddard’s post on Psephizo “Such options might also allow a period of orderly ongoing discernment within the wider church. This would include in part – on the Gamaliel principle (“if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God”, Acts 5:38-39) – gaining greater clarity over time as to the mind of the church and the work of the Spirit both on the substantive issues and also on how our structures best evolve to enable the highest degree of communion in the face of our disagreements and divergences.  “