Before I address those areas where I (though not just ‘I’, I hasten to add) have grave concerns about what the Bishops have said in their videos, and explore how it cannot justify the departure we have now taken from the historic and Biblical teaching and discipline of the Church, there are a couple of other things the Bishops say that I have some resonance with… some.

The first, as I intimated in my first post, is their oft repeated commitment to unity. For this we are grateful, and it is one of the places where I felt both the strongest resonance, but also the some of the strongest uncertainty about what is actually being said. That uncertainty has only increased in the light of Synod’s debate and vote. Bishop Martin speaks of the need to ‘attend to and nurture the bonds of affection’, and Bishop Mike speaks of the commitment of the Diocese to continue to appoint, encourage and support across the spectrum of views on LLF, and specifcally on this issue of the blessings of those in same sex marriages. I was struck by the Bishops’ exploring their commitment to unity not as an end in itself, but in relation to Christ.

This is a refreshing perspective and one I warmed to in the videos. It is, as the Bishops say, costly, but it is something we are to prioritise, and make every effort to keep (Eph.4:1-6). So where do my concerns lie?

The first is the question of what it means to build our unity in relation to Christ, when our visions of Christ are dissonant. That seems an impossibly brittle foundation. At root is the question of whether we can disentangle the Person of Jesus from His teaching. And by ‘His teaching’ we don’t limit ourselves to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, but also His teaching by His Spirit through the Apostles, and prior to that, through the Law, the Writings and the Prophets. Bishop Mike links our unity to our pointing to who Christ is… but that seems to be precisely the point at issue. Who do we believe Christ to be, and what do we believe He is calling us to be? Who is the Christ to whom we are pointing?

The second is the observation that throughout the Bible, the unity of the Church is threatened by heterodox teaching, and un-Apostolic views of Jesus, and of disicpleship. Those entrusted with leadership in our Church are exhorted to ‘hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that they can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it’ (Titus 1:9). This is captured by the Church of England’s commission to her Bishops (captured in Canon C18, Every bishop is the chief pastor of all that are within their diocese … it appertains to their office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions). This conformity to the teaching of the Church is conformity to our shared vision of Christ, His teaching and what it means to follow Him. In spite of the oft-repeated claim that the 39 Articles are not a Basis of faith, it is clear that the BCP understands them to be exactly that. They are ‘Articles … for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true religion’.

And my third concern is that in spite of the rhetoric of unity, the House of Bishops have in fact - in their Proposals - introduced colossal disunity to both the Church of England, and the Global Anglican Communion. Whilst I take Bishop Martin’s point that we may have different ideas of what we are aspiring to with regard to unity, and with whom, there are three fractures that have opened in this last week, that are unlikely to ever be healed.

Within the Church of England there is a disunity of doctrine, practise and liturgy that strikes at some of the most foundational beliefs about what it means to be Christian. We are facing an almost unprecedented prospect of division within our denomination. As of this week’s vote in General Synod, we can no longer speak of a united Church. The Church of England Evangelical Council (which includes Bishops and Principals of Theological Colleges) is amongst those within the Church of England immediately calling for visible differentiation, and for ‘Principled Protest’. The House of Bishops has preciptated a sequence of events that could conceivably lead to the break-up of the historic Church. That isn’t fear-mongering, it is simply a statement of fact. Whether those voting in Synod yesterday appreciated the significance of their actions or intended this as a consequnce is quite beside the point. And all talk of ‘walking together’ sounds hollow and disingenuous after what we witnessed at Synod.

Within the Global Anglican Communion (not even taking into account GAFCON), there has already been a call for the Church of England to repent, or face ‘impaired communion’. The Archbishop of Alexandria was at Synod, and warned those voting of these consequences. The Global South Primates (representing 75%+) of the Global Anglican Church have already issued a statement questioning whether ArchBishop Welby is ‘fit to lead’ the Global Anglican Communion. They continue that in view of this week’s General Synod, they will be

‘taking decisive steps towards re-setting the Anglican Communion (as outlined in our ‘Communique’ following the 2022 Lambeth Conference). Orthodox Provinces in GSFA are not leaving the Anglican Communion, but with great sadness must recognise that the Church of England has now joined those Provinces with which communion is impaired. The historical Church which spawned the global Communion, and which for centuries was accorded ‘first among equals’ status, has now triggered a widespread loss of confidence in her leadership of the Communion’.

And ecumenically… quite apart form the damage this has done ‘on the ground’, other denominations and Church networks are already raising deep concerns at Synod’s decisions. A Coptic Orthodox Bishop - an invited guest at Synod, warned this decision would be ‘contrary to the received tradition of the Christian world’, and would result in the distancing of other denominations such as his own. Abroad, there will be violent repercussions for the persecuted Church elsewhere in the world - again, a fact recognised (even articulated by the ArchBishop of Canterbury himself) but ignored by Synod. In part there is grief and despair at the significance of the country’s established Church stepping away from its own teaching, but also concern that the Synod’s decision will be used to undermine Christians, Churches and Christian Organisations, at home and abroad, that remain committed to the historic and Biblical position. Will the Bishops - as an expression of their commitment to unity within the Church of England - publicly defend and protect those who hold to the historic and Biblical teaching on these issues? Will they defend Christians who are now undermined in their workplaces? Will they defend parents of children in Church of England Schools who challenge those schools for teaching that which is contrary to Scriptural teaching? Recent history would suggest not - and that was before Synod’s vote. What then is this unity?

But I fear most immediately for the division and disunity that the Bishop’s Proposals will cause in the local congregations that remain the foundational building blocks of the Church of England. As each Minister & PCC now have to face the question of whether to use these Prayers of Love and Faith, how many congregations will be left diminished and divided. I confess a certain anxiety particularly over evangelical congregations. It has to be said that as evangelicals, we tend not good at unity. In part because we tend to be Evangelicals first and Anglicans second. Our commitment to Scripture and Christ trumps our commitment to the Church of England, although until this week the two were not necessarily in tension. The technical sophistry of Synod will count for little amongst those who long more than anything for their pastors to be faithful to Scripture. The legal casuistry will only serve to further undermine their confidence. And the oft-repeated statements from many that there is still a way to go on this journey gives little reason to stay. The situation we find ourselves in is not good for Evangelicals, nor for Anglicans. Many of us will stay… although for many it will depend on the reality of how this all plays out in the weeks and months ahead. But many will go. And in spite of the obvious contempt for traditionalists shown in Synod, that will be a tragedy for the Church of England.

So, yes, but… Yes, let’s pursue unity. But this is not it.