“The 39 Articles Are A Beautiful Guide To Orthodoxy – If Only The Bishops Agreed.”

I’ve recently been in correspondence with a bishop who is quite influential in the process surrounding the Prayers of Love and Faith. It has led to a revealing conversation around Article 26 of the 39 Articles of Faith.

The 39 Articles are a brief and condensed statement of what Anglican Christians believe and teach. The English Reformers compiled these carefully summarised statements of biblical theology to guide and guard our identity in Christ. Adopted by the Church of England in 1571, the 39 Articles assist believers in thinking, discussing, applying, and sharing “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). These theological principles remain relevant for our spiritual health and maturity as we follow Jesus Christ today.

The discussion arose because a parish passed a resolution that they would “not allow anyone who is unable to affirm the statement above to officiate, preach or otherwise exercise authority at [ ]”. The statement they asked people to affirm read as follows.

“The PCC of [ ] affirms the current Church of England doctrine that the only place for sexual activity is in marriage between one man and one woman, which is intended to be for life, since we believe this to be the pattern given to us in Scripture. We affirm the beauty, as commended in Scripture, of both marriage and celibate singleness. We seek to provide good pastoral support for those who may struggle to live by this teaching and welcome all people to [ ], regardless of their sexual status or orientation. We seek to be a Church which is a loving Christian community, an extended family, and a place where we hold to a traditional Christian view of marriage, as set out in Scripture and the Book of Common Prayer, 39 Articles and Ordinal, and to do so with grace and love.”

Asking those who minister in the Church of England to consent to the Church of England doctrine of marriage and sexuality would seem logical.

However, the bishop with whom I’ve corresponded disagrees. He argues that such a resolution is unnecessary and has told me it could be challenged on grounds of discrimination.

Read here