Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:42:06.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Church of England and Same-Sex Marriage: Beyond a Rights-Based Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2019

Charlotte Smith
Charlotte Smith*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor in Law, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some scholars, faced with the apparent conflict between the Church of England's teaching on marriage and the idea of equal marriage embraced by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, have focused on the implications of that Act for the constitutional relationship between Church, State and nation. More frequently, noting the position of the Church of England under that Act, academics have critiqued the legislation as an exercise in balancing competing human rights. This article by contrast, leaving behind a tendency to treat religion as a monolithic ‘other’, and leaving behind the neat binaries of rights-based analyses, interrogates the internal agonies of the Church of England as it has striven to negotiate an institutional response to the secular legalisation of same-sex marriage. It explores the struggles of the Church to do so in a manner which holds in balance a wide array of doctrinal positions and the demands of mission, pastoral care and the continued apostolic identity of the Church of England.

Keywords

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013Church of Englandsame-sex marriageChurch and State
Type
Articles
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 153 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I owe a debt of gratitude to Stephen Banks, Piers Bickersteth, Mark Hill, Mark Laynesmith and Mark Wilde for their invaluable feedback and support. Responsibility for any errors and infelicities remains my own.

References

2 Civil Partnership Act 2004.

3 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, s 1.

4 Most recently in respect of services to mark gender transition. See D Pocklington, ‘Services to mark gender transition’, Law & Religion UK, 24 January 2018, <http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2018/01/24/services-to-mark-gender-transition/>, accessed 2 November 2018. The wrangles have been so apparently intractable that Bruce Kaye, a leading Anglican scholar, asked in a journal editorial, ‘Is sex going to kill the Anglican Communion?’, (2007) 5:1 Journal of Anglican Studies 7–9.

5 Not least because they are not infrequently subjected to parliamentary comment and debate. See eg Statement by the Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry) and subsequent comments after the rejection of women bishops in General Synod: HC Deb 22 November 2012, vol 553, cols 717–727See also the Westminster Hall debate on women in the Church of England: HC Deb 28 February 2012, vol 541, cols 1–22WH. On the role of Parliament in relation to the Church of England, see Slack, S, ‘Synodical government and the legislative process’, (2012) 14 Ecc LJ 43–81Google Scholar; Trott, S, ‘The function of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament with particular reference to the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1992’, (1993) 107:1 The Churchman 6–23Google Scholar.

6 If marrying a member of the opposite sex.

7 Baroness Sherlock speaking on the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 2014: HL Deb 14 October 2014, vol 756, col 182. This echoes the idea of what Grace Davie has called ‘vicarious religion’ among those who would not necessarily self-identify as members of a particular religious group. For a brief overview, see Davie, G, ‘Vicarious religion: a response’, (2010) 25:2 Journal of Contemporary Religion 261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 See <https://www.churchofengland.org/more/education-and-schools/church-schools-and-academies>, accessed 2 November 2018.

9 Significantly more than any other Christian body: see <https://www.churchofengland.org/about/churches>, accessed 2 November 2018.

10 See P Johnson, R Vanderbeck and S Falcetta, ‘Religious marriage of same-sex couples: a report on places of worship in England and Wales registered for the solemnization of same-sex marriage’, November 2017, available at: <https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/124435/1/Same_Sex_Religious_Marriage.pdf>, accessed 5 February 2019. Note, though, that the Law Commission is now to conduct a full review of the law relating to weddings: see <https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/government-asks-law-commission-to-conduct-a-full-review-of-weddings-law/>, accessed 1 November 2018.

11 Most recently the Scottish Episcopal Church has facilitated the holding of same-sex marriages in its churches (see D Pocklington, ‘SEC approval of same-sex marriage; reaction in Anglican churches’, Law & Religion UK, 8 June 2017, <http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2017/06/08/sec-approval-of-same-sex-marriage-reaction-in-anglican-churches/>, accessed 2 November 2018) and the Anglican Church of Canada. On the resulting litigation, see Ogilvie, M, ‘Judicial restraint and neutral principles in Anglican Church property disputes: Bentley v Diocese of New Westminster’, (2011) 13 Ecc LJ 198–215Google Scholar.

12 See eg ‘House of Bishops pastoral guidance on same sex marriage’, 15 February 2014, < https://www.churchofengland.org/more/media-centre/news/house-bishops-pastoral-guidance-same-sex-marriage>, accessed 2 November 2018.

13 Ibid, paras 26 and 27 and also Pemberton v Inwood [2018] EWCA Civ 564.

14 ‘House of Bishops pastoral guidance’, paras 19–21. This echoes the approach in respect of registered civil partnerships. It does not preclude an act of private prayer with such couples, though there is an expectation that this ‘should accompanied by pastoral discussion of the church's teaching and their reasons for departing from it’.

15 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013,  s 1(4), regarding the clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales, and more generally s 2.

16 Ibid, ss 1(3) and 11(6).

17 Ibid, s 4(1); Marriage Act 1949, s 26A(5).

18 For contrasting analyses see Oliva, J Garcia and Hall, H, ‘Same-sex marriage: an inevitable challenge to religious liberty and establishment?’, (2014) 3:1 Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Sagovsky, N, ‘Hooker, Warburton, Coleridge and the “quadruple lock”: state and church in the twenty-first century’, (2014) 16 Ecc LJ 140–146Google Scholar. For the conflict between the underpinning ideologies of human rights culture and establishment more generally, see Smith, C, ‘Establishment and human rights in the English constitution: happy bedfellows or uneasy allies?’ in Doe, N and Sandberg, R (eds), Law and Religion: New Horizons (Leuven, 2010), pp 41–56Google Scholar.

19 See eg Ahdar, R, ‘Solemnisation of same-sex marriage and religious freedom’, (2014) 16 Ecc LJ 283–305Google Scholar; Rivers, J, ‘Law, religion and gender equality’, (2007) 9 Ecc LJ 24–52Google Scholar; Stychin, C, ‘Faith in the future: sexuality, religion and the public sphere’, (2009) 29:4 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 729–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stychin, C, ‘Closet cases: conscientious objection to lesbian and gay equality’, (2009) 18:1 Griffith Law Review 17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wintermute, R, ‘Religion vs. sexual orientation: a clash of human rights?’, (2002) 1:2 Journal of Law and Equality 126–154Google Scholar.

20 Johnson, P and Vanderbeck, R, ‘Sacred spaces, sacred words: religion and same-sex marriage in England and Wales’, (2017) 44:2 Law and Society 228–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 247.

21 Geertz, C, ‘Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture’, in The Interpretation of Cultures: selected essays (New York, 1973), pp 3–30Google Scholar.

22 Not, admittedly, an entirely unchallenged or unproblematic approach: see eg P Shankman et al, ‘The thick and the thin: on the interpretive theoretical program of Clifford Geertz’, (1984) 25:3 Current Anthropology 261–280.

23 Though there is considerable theological debate (and divergence) even within the Church of England, and indeed within its traditional wings, on the substantive question of human sexuality. See, for example, the appendices contributed to the Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality (GS 1929, 2014) by Keith Sinclair, Bishop of Birkenhead, and David Runcorn. See also John, J, ‘Permanent, Faithful, Stable’: Christian same sex partnerships (London, 2000)Google Scholar; and Allberry, S, Is God Anti-Gay? And other questions about homosexuality, the Bible and same-sex attraction (Epsom, 2013)Google Scholar.

24 Johnson and Vanderbeck, ‘Sacred spaces, sacred words’, p 229.

25 The Church of England, however, rejects the Government's distinction between civil and religious marriage: see Archbishops’ Submission to the ‘Government Consultation on Same Sex Marriage’ (GS Misc 1027), <https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/GS%20Misc%201027%20government%20consultation%20on%20same%20sex%20marriage.pdf>, accessed 2 November 2018. For the power of religious bodies to opt in to provision of same-sex marriage, see Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, ss 4 and 5; and Marriage Act 1949, s 26A and B. For the Government position, see Government Equalities Office, ‘Equal Civil Marriage: A Consultation’ (2012), para 1(9)(ii).

26 For a useful summary see ‘Civil partnerships: a pastoral statement from the House of Bishops of the Church of England’ (2005), paras 6 and 7.

27 Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality (GS 1929).

28 See Archbishops’ Council, ‘Grace and disagreement: shared conversations on Scripture, mission and human sexuality’ (2015).

29 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations: report of the House of Bishops’ (GS 2055, January 2017), para 61.

30 For legal advice to this effect, see ibid, annex 1.

31 Ibid, para 22. It also recommended that the Church should work towards the publication of a new teaching document, which would both reaffirm the Church's traditional doctrine of marriage and affirm the place of lesbian and gay people within the life of the Church (para 34).

32 See eg ‘Civil partnerships: a pastoral statement’; ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 38; Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1(10)(d).

33 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 5; Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1(10)(c).

34 See eg Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality, para 76.

35 See eg Letter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York following General Synod's failure to take note of GS 2055, <https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/abc-and-aby-joint-letter.pdf>, accessed 2 November 2018. For the work of the Living in Love and Faith project, see <https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/general-synod/bishops/living-love-and-faith>, accessed 2 November 2018.

36 Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality, para 76.

37 Following the failure of the report to secure a majority in favour in the House of Clergy, Synod declined to ‘take note’ of the report. For examples of reporting of this see <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38982013> and <https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-religion-britain-anglicans/church-of-england-stance-on-gay-marriage-in-disarray-after-vote-idUKKBN15U2L9>, accessed 2 November 2018.

38 Letter of the Archbishops to the members of General Synod (see n 36 above).

39 Ibid. It must be acknowledged that in seeking to live out or respond to these aspirations individuals will often fall lamentably short of the ideal.

40 An archdeacon in the Diocese of Guildford apparently once quipped that ‘When the Lord returns, the Church of England will set up a commission to decide (a) whether the trumpet sounded (b) what note it sounded, and to report in a year's time as to whether it took place’. See McHenry, B, ‘The future of synodical government’, (1993) 3 Ecc LJ 86–102Google Scholar, at 88–89.

41 Wilson, A, More Perfect Union? Understanding same-sex marriage (London, 2014)Google Scholar.

42 For reporting of this see eg <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4723494/Justine-Greening-CofE-allow-gay-marriages.html> and <https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/07/04/speaker-john-bercow-calls-for-the-church-of-england-to-accept-same-sex-marriages/>, accessed 2 November 2018.

43 See D Pocklington, ‘CofE service after same sex marriage?’, Law & Religion UK, 20 October 2017, <http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2017/10/20/cofe-service-after-same-sex-marriage/>; A Goddard, ‘Can the church change its practice of marriage without changing its doctrine?’, Anglican Mainstream, 20 March 2018, <http://anglicanmainstream.org/can-the-church-change-its-practice-on-marriage-without-changing-its-doctrine/>, both accessed 2 November 2018.

44 See eg some of the posts to <http://www.gayweddingplanner.org.uk/lesbian-church-wedding/>, accessed 2 November 2018.

45 See eg M Burkill and P Sanlon, Discussion Paper on Broken Fellowship, ReNew, 2017, in consultation with AMiE, Church Society and Reform; Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), ‘Gospel, church and marriage: preserving apostolic faith and life’, January 2018, <http://anglican.ink/2018/02/03/preserving-apostolic-faith-and-life/>, accessed 5 February 2019; letter from CEEC to the Chair of Living in Love and Faith, 13 October 2018, <http://www.ceec.info/uploads/4/4/2/7/44274161/3.letter_to_llf_-_16_october_2018.pdf>, accessed 2 November 2018.

46 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, paras 10 and 59.

47 Brittain, C, ‘Confession obsession? Core doctrine and the anxieties of Anglican theology’, (2008) 90:4 Anglican Theological Review 777–799Google Scholar, at 791.

48 Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality, para 56.

49 For statistics on Anglican attitudes to homosexual relationships, though not yet on same-sex marriage, see the figures and commentary published by British Religion in Numbers, available at: <http://www.brin.ac.uk/2012/what-anglicans-and-others-think-about-homosexuality-and-disestablishment/>, accessed 2 November 2018.

50 Russell, A, The Clerical Profession (London, 1980), p 3Google Scholar; Bishop of Rochester (James Langstaff) speaking on the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 2014: HL Deb 14 October 2014, vol 756, col 178.

51 Percy, M, The Future Shapes of Anglicanism: currents, contours and charts (Abingdon, 2017), p 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Ibid, p 4.

53 For modern comment on the importance of the parochial system to the national mission of the Church, see eg Synodical Government in the Church of England: a review (London, 1997), para 3.2.

54 On this point, see Doe, N, ‘The notion of a national church: a juridical framework’, (2002) 149 Law & Justice 77–91Google Scholar, at 89; see also Re Perry Almshouses [1898] 1 Ch 391 and Taylor v Timson (1888) 20 QBD 671.

55 H Wilson, ‘Séances historiques de Genève’, in Essays and Reviews, twelfth edition (London, 1969; first published 1860), p 207.

56 Avis, P, ‘The Church of England as a national church’, (2002)149 Law & Justice 111–117Google Scholar, at 114 (emphasis in original).

57 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 8.

58 Religious Dissenters or Nonconformists, falling into the category of schismatics, were denounced and rendered ipso facto excommunicate by Canons 9 and 12 of 1603. Excluded from the membership or community of the Church under canon law, Dissenters were, prior to the reforms of the nineteenth century, further excluded from the political life of the nation by the action of statutes such as the Test Acts of 1673 and 1678, and the Corporation Act of 1661, though successive Indemnity Acts passed after 1727 mitigated the effects of these statutes.

59 See <http://freshexpressions.org.uk/>, accessed 2 November 2018. For a critique of this movement, see Percy, Future Shapes of Anglicanism, introduction and afterword.

60 As late as 1953 Vaisey J held that ‘So far as concerns a “member of the Church of England,” I cannot think that those words by themselves are really capable of any definite, certain significance.’ See Re Allen (No 1) [1953] Ch 116 at 119. Note also that the mandate of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament is, under the Church of England (Assembly) Powers Act 1919, s 3(3), to state ‘the nature and legal effect of the measure and its views as to the expediency thereof, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all Her Majesty's subjects’ (emphasis added).

61 Canon B 15A (subject to the application of the provisions of the Admission of Baptized Children to Holy Communion Regulations 2006). On the worship and liturgy of the Church of England see Hill, M, Ecclesiastical Law, fourth edition (Oxford, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch 5.

62 Church Representation Rules, 1(2)a–c and 6(2). Note that this is a system of self-declaration and is not policed. On this point see Hill, Ecclesiastical Law, paras 3.03–3.05.

63 Church Representation Rules, 10(1)(b). Rule 54(1) defines an actual communicant as being a person who has received Holy Communion ‘according to the use’ of the Church of England or a church in communion with it at least three times in the twelve months preceding election.

64 Again, typified in Grace Davie's idea of ‘vicarious religion’. See Davie, ‘Vicarious religion’, and Bruce, S and Voas, D, ‘Vicarious religion: an examination and critique’, (2010) 25:2 Journal of Contemporary Religion 243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for an overview and critique.

65 As reflected in reports under the Renewal and Reform initiative, including ‘“Setting God's people free”: a report from the Archbishops’ Council’ (GS 2056).

66 Though a repeating motif in debates about synodical government and the continuing role of Parliament in Church government has long been the idea that General Synod is not representative of the Church as a whole, but rather of a particular active minority. See eg Trott, ‘Function of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament’, p 15; Morris, R (ed), Church and State in 21st Century Britain: The Future of Church Establishment (Basingstoke, 2009), p 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Division debate on the Worship and Doctrine Measure 1974: HC Deb 4 December 1974, vol 882, cols 1567–1698; Debate on the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1992: HL Deb 2 November 1993, vol 549, cols 1001–1080.

67 One response to this is that the Church should be led by the teaching of Scripture, but this rarely leads to simple outcomes – particularly when, as shall be seen below, approaches to the reading of such Scripture are diverse and often divergent. Further, imperatives of mission and comprehension may not always sit easily with the need to motivate and empower the active laity upon whose energy and willingness to act the Church is increasingly reliant. On this point in a historical context, see generally M Roberts, ‘The role of the laity in the Church of England c 1850–1885’, unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford (1974).

68 Anglican political theology ascribes it to God's benevolent agency. For a good beginners’ guide, see Vidler, A, The Church in an Age of Revolution (London, 1962)Google Scholar.

69 Archbishops’ Council, ‘Grace and disagreement’, p 15.

70 Knatchbull Hugessen at HC Deb15 July 1874, vol 221, col 66.

71 Rickards in Report of Church Congress (London, 1883), p 76.

72 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 61.

73 Saturday Review, 30 (1870), pp 392–393.

74 A de Berry, Letter to the Editor, ‘Church divisions’, The Times, 25 February 2005, p 18. There is, in fact, evidence of deep unease about the notion of defining and enforcing doctrinal boundaries. See, for example, the general tenor of the Synod debates rejecting the inclusion of doctrinal offences within the scope of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003: Synod Report of Proceedings 27(3), November 1996, 866–899 and 937–951; Synod Report of Proceedings 35(2), July 2004, 79–103. Note also that the secular press almost universally spoke of the attempt to provide for legal discipline in suits concerning matters of doctrine, ritual and ceremonial using the inflammatory language of ‘heresy trials’. They often included a picture of a heretic being burnt at the stake. See eg ‘Liberal clergy facing the threat of heresy trials’, The Times, 22 June 2004, p 7; ‘Church aims to put clergy in the dock with new modern trials’, The Times, 15 February 2005, p 4.

75 Brown, S, The National Churches of England, Ireland, and Scotland 1801–46 (Oxford, 2001), p 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Lord Halsbury in General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland v Overtoun [1904] AC 515 at 612.

77 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 59. This echoes the approach taken to those within the Church who continue, for a variety of theological reasons, to reject female headship.

78 [78] Ibid, para 10.

79 Saturday Review (n 74 above).

80 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 9.

81 For a thoughtful consideration of the outworking of this in synodical government, see Chapman, M, ‘Does the Church of England have a theology of General Synod?’, (2013) 11:1 Journal of Anglican Studies 15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 8.

83 <https://www.churchofengland.org/>, accessed 2 November 2018. See also eg Synodical Government in the Church of England, para 3.2.

84 For a full discussion of this, see Bell, P, Disestablishment in Ireland and Wales (London, 1969)Google Scholar, ch 1.

85 Though Paul Avis has notably done much to try to change this. See eg Avis, P, The Vocation of Anglicanism (London, 2016)Google Scholar; Avis, P, The Anglican Understanding of the Church: An Introduction, second edition (London, 2013)Google Scholar. Note that, as Davie and others have pointed out, ‘vicarious religion’ offers little long-term security for the status quo.

86 Mission-shaped Church: church planting and fresh expressions of church in a changing context (London, 2004).

87 Synodical Government in the Church of England, para 1.7.

88 Archbishops’ Council, ‘Grace and disagreement’, p 34.

89 ‘Shared conversations on sexuality, Scripture and mission’ (GS Misc 1083), para 3.

90 The 1988 Lambeth Conference declared that the 1990s should be a decade of evangelism and this emphasis on mission has persisted into the new millennium. See eg the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018, s 35, which (reproducing the duty originally found in Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991, s 1) creates a statutory duty to have regard to the parish church as a local centre for worship and mission.

91 This distinction is not absolute – nor should the point be overstated. ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, paras 58 and 62, explicitly adverts to the need to have reference to pastoral theology (among other things) alongside missiology. Yet, particularly in the context of human sexuality, the language used is overwhelmingly that of mission. See especially GS 2029.

92 See Mark 16:15; Matthew 28:19–20; Acts 1:7–8.

93 On this see most famously R Hooker, Of Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (first published 1594), and S T Coleridge, On the Constitution of Church and State According to the Idea of Each (first published 1830). Note, however, that the distinction is not universally made – see most famously W Warburton, The Alliance between Church and State (first published 1736) and T Arnold, Principles of Church Reform (first published 1833).

94 Avis, Anglican Understanding of the Church, 44.

95 Philippians 1:4–5.

96 This is a criticism long levelled at evangelicals within the Church of England, and more recently articulated in relation to some of the ‘fresh expressions of church’ which have flowed from Mission-shaped Church. See generally Davison, A and Milbank, A, For the Parish: a critique of fresh expressions (London, 2010)Google Scholar.

97 See eg the treatment of the question by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament: Ecclesiastical Committee 192nd report: Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Deacons (Ordination of Women) Measure (HC 446, 1985); Ecclesiastical Committee 203rd Report: Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1992 (HC 894, 1992); Ecclesiastical Committee 233rd Report: Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee on the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (HC 622, 2014).

98 The technical term for this is adiaphora.

99 See eg CEEC, ‘Gospel, church and marriage’; Burkill and Sanlon, Discussion Paper on Broken Fellowship.

100 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 61.

101 For the Anglican Mission in England, see <https://anglicanmissioninengland.org/>, accessed 23 January 2019.

102 Andy Lines was consecrated by a bishop of the Anglican Church in North America, a church outside the Anglican Communion, as GAFCON's Missionary Bishop to Europe on 30 June 2017. On this and subsequent ordinations, see D Pocklington, ‘AMiE ordinations’, Law & Religion UK, 7 December 2017, <https://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2017/12/07/amie-ordinations/>, accessed 23 January 2019.

103 The equivalent of a diocese to accommodate former Anglicans wishing to come into full communion with the Church of Rome. See Hill, C, ‘What is the Personal Ordinariate? Canonical and liturgical observations’, (2010) 12 Ecc LJ 202–208Google Scholar.

104 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 43.

105 Clergy must affirm their commitment to this at ordination/consecration and again when they are licensed in any particular post. See Canon C 15.

106 For a summary of the law, see ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, annex 1.

107 See Hill, Ecclesiastical Law, paras 5.01–5.08; also ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, paras 40–42.

108 It is sometimes argued that the bishops could, without being seen to confound existing doctrine, commend a service of prayer and dedication as they did in respect of civil marriage after divorce. However, in the course of that service the couple are required to reaffirm their commitment to the Church's teaching on marriage. It is difficult to see how any service in connection with same-sex marriage could at present do the same. See A Goddard, ‘Liturgies for same-sex couples? Thoughts on a new Private Member's Motion for General Synod’, 21 March 2018, <https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/liturgies-for-same-sex-couples-thoughts-on-a-new-private-members-motion-for-general-synod/>, accessed 2 November 2018.

109 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 65.

110 Ibid.

111 J Hubbard's letter to the editor, Buckingham Express, 16 August 1871. It is this concept which underpins the Church of England's long legal commitment to uniformity of worship, which was only finally decisively abandoned after the passage into law of the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974.

112 On this point see eg Sagovsky, ‘Hooker, Warburton, Coleridge and the “quadruple lock”’.

113 Briden, T, Moore's Introduction to English Canon Law, fourth edition (London, 2013), pp 82–83Google Scholar.

114 For recent articulations of this, see eg ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 65; Avis, Anglican Understanding of the Church, p 95.

115 Canon C 15, paras 1 and 2. See Bursell, R, ‘The clerical declaration of assent’, (2016) 18 Ecc LJ 165–187Google Scholar.

116 For an introduction to these arguments, see ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, paras 58–59; Rowell, G, ‘An historical perspective on doctrine and discipline in the Church of England’, (2005) 8 Ecc LJ 41–59Google Scholar. For examples of the very different conclusions which can be reached, see especially Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality, paras 220–253, 280–319, appendices 3 and 4.

117 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 62.

118 Avis, Anglican Understanding of the Church, p 43.

119 See Hill, Ecclesiastical Law, chs 1 and 2. Parliament does not assent to canons, which are the primary means of securing doctrinal and liturgical innovation, though it can legally – though not by convention – amend such matters by legislation. On the recent history of parliamentary activism in Church affairs, see Maiden, J, ‘English evangelicals, protestant national identity, and Anglican Prayer Book revision, 1927–1928’, (2010) 34:4 Journal of Religious History 430–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Maiden, J and Webster, P, ‘Parliament, the Church of England and the last gasp of political protestantism, 1963–4’, (2013) 32:2 Parliamentary History 361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For recent assertions of the reality of Parliament's continuing role, see eg Ben Bradshaw MP at HC Deb 20 October 2014, vol 586, col 716; Baroness Sherlock at HL Deb 14 October 2014, vol 756, col 182. For the contrary position, see eg Lord MacKay at HL Deb 14 October 2014, vol 756, col 180; Peter Bone at HC Deb 20 October 2014, vol 586, col 721. For commentary on Parliament's role in Church legislation, see Slack, ‘Synodical government and the legislative process’; Slack, S, ‘Church autonomy and the Civil Partnership Act: a rejoinder’, (2007) 9 Ecc LJ 206–207Google Scholar.

120 See eg Synodical Government in the Church of England, ch 1.

121 Ibid, para 1.3.

122 Synodical Government Measure 1969, sch 2, Arts 6 and 7; Hill, Ecclesiastical Law, paras 2.25–2.26.

123 Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974, s 3.

124 Chapman, ‘Does the Church of England have a theology of General Synod?’; McHenry, ‘Future of synodical government’; Synodical Government in the Church of England.

125 See Banton, M, Administering the Empire, 1801–1968: a guide to the records of the Colonial Office in the National Archives of the UK (London, 2008)Google Scholar; Cornish, W, ‘Empire's law’ in Cornish, W et al. , The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol XI (Oxford, 2010), pp 234–254Google Scholar; Smith, C, ‘Bishop of Natal v Gladstone (1866)’ in Mitchell, C and Mitchell, P (eds), Landmark Cases in Equity (Oxford, 2012), pp 305–328Google Scholar; Strong, R, Anglicanism and the British Empire c.1700–1850 (Oxford, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

126 Brittain, ‘Confession obsession?’, p 779. See also generally N Doe, Canon Law in the Anglican Communion: a worldwide perspective (Oxford, 1998).

127 Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion Holden at Lambeth Palace July 5 to August 7, 1920 (London, 1920), pp 9, 11, 13–14.

128 The Lambeth Commission on Communion: the Windsor Report 2004 (London, 2004), para 49.

129 Conference of Bishops, pp 13–14.

130 Windsor Report, para 76.

131 Ibid, para 82.

132 These instruments are the means by which the Communion fosters bonds and communication between its Churches: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.

133 Windsor Report, para 143.

134 Archbishops’ Council, ‘Grace and disagreement’, paras 85–98; ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, para 60.

135 Hill, Ecclesiastical Law, paras 2.01–2.02.

136 Brittain, ‘Confession obsession?’, p 788.

137 ‘Marriage and same sex relationships after shared conversations’, paras 1 and 57.

138 Windsor Report, para 157, quoting Ephesians 4:3.