The first question is, why is the Church of England following in the footsteps of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church both of whom experienced schism over the issue. This has not been a win for either church. Ignoring reality won't make it go away. Or is there a colonial arrogance that says, 'we are the CofE ol' chap, the Mother Church, and we dictate the terms of Anglicanism...and sexual boundaries.'

Here in the U.S. homosexuals did not come rushing in looking to warm pews after the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson. In fact, TEC has been shrinking faster than a late blooming lilac. Increasingly, dioceses are merging as parishes wither and die, and older generations of Episcopalians head to columbaria and few young people are coming forward to fill pews and pulpits. The money pool is also shrinking.

It is compounding hubris to believe that things will be different for the Church of England. For the vast majority of the English, the Church of England is irrelevant to their lives. Of the 68 million Brits less than 700,000 attend a parish on Sunday. That is hardly something to write home to mother about.

A group calling themselves the Anglican Alliance pleaded with the church not to go down the rocky road of sexual apostasy, and threatened to form their own more perfect union should the CofE move ahead with these unbiblical blessings. As events transpired they did.

On Monday 8 July, the General Synod of the Church of England voted to proceed with blessings for same-sex couples and to explore allowing clergy to enter same-sex civil marriages and engage in homosexual sexual activity.

Three letters from the orthodox wing of the Church appeared in a coordinated attempt to influence the ongoing debates about human sexuality, biblical authority and church law.

The first to appear was from eleven orthodox bishops, who called on their colleagues to take the time to build a "sufficient consensus in relation to doctrinal matters.

The second was an open letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, from an orthodox grouping, known as 'The Alliance', claiming to represent 2,000 clergy, who said they wanted "to establish what would in effect be a new de facto 'parallel Province' within the Church of England", if the blessings go ahead. They did. This group included seven bishops.

The third 'letter' appeared on the website of the Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda, an Anglo-Catholic grouping within the Church of England. It was less strident than the others and recognized "the toll that this is taking among LGBTQI+ Christians, who are strongly present in so many of the parishes we have been formed in and now serve."

Later, leaders of EFAC, Church Society, GSFA and GAFCON all weighed in condemning the actions of Synod. https://virtueonline.org/synod-what-happened-and-why-does-it-matter

The recent Global South Fellowship of Anglicans Assembly (GSFA) issued a Communique from that meeting reaffirming their view that, "With the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury forfeiting their leadership role of the global Communion," a global reset is required. It also outlined the "practical steps" that GSFA has taken to create "a well-structured home for orthodox Anglicans".

Dividing up the Church of England might be harder than you think.

A source deeply familiar with the workings of the Church of England sent VOL the following report:

Unlike any other province of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains Established as part of the kingdom of England. This means that it is formally represented in the legislature (26 Archbishops and Bishops sit in the House of Lords) and the Head of State is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is also the most senior member of the House of Lords.

The ecclesiastical law of the Church of England is part of the English legal system and can be enforced in the English courts. Its legislation (called Measures) is passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, by both Houses of Parliament, and receives the Royal Assent. It is an Act of Parliament.

"The property and financial assets of the Church of England are held subject to the overriding supervision of Parliament, which has authority to legislate for the Church at any time if it chooses to do so, and to disendow it is it chooses to do so. These assets which formerly belonged to the Church in England were handed by King Henry VIII to what became known as the Church of England when he ended the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in England in 1534. In other words, what had formerly belonged to the Catholic Church as an independent estate within the realm, subject to the jurisdiction of Rome, now existed as a jurisdiction subject to the Crown of England.

For any group within the Church of England contemplating separation from it, this presents a formidable obstacle.

There are a number of possible degrees of separation:

* Informal associations within the Church of England such as The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and The Society (Anglo-Catholic)
* Special pastoral provision for conservatives approved by General Synod such as the current arrangements for provincial bishops to visit conservative parishes...
* An extended version of special pastoral provision on a wider scale supplied by bishops specially appointed/consecrated to represent an informal province...
* What has been called a "Third Province" -- a juridically separate province for England for conservatives but remaining within the Church of England...
* Complete secession from the Church of England by one or more conservative groups, leaving behind all the assets they currently hold -- church buildings, clergy housing, financial endowments, seminaries, cathedrals, etc., to become Free Churches.

The first two of these already exist. The second exists informally and was provided to ensure that General Synod voted for women bishops.

The third appears to be what the House of Bishops are now proposing to deal with the challenges posed by the Alliance (Evangelical/Catholic) to its plans for introducing the blessing of same-sex marriages in formal church services, and to allow clergy to enter into same-sex marriages.

The fourth represents what the Alliance is demanding and which is unlikely to be granted by the General Synod, where the bishops have a sufficient majority to prevent it.

The fifth is the inevitable consequence of leaving the jurisdiction of the Church of England. Because the Church is part of the State, and the State has Established the Church, everything belongs to the Established Church. The non-jurors took this option in 1689, including a number of senior bishops. They lost everything. The same happened to the Methodist Movement, which became a separate church (actually several separate churches).

There are two key issues for the Alliance to resolve, therefore.

1. Do they consider that a degree of separation within the Church of England, but remaining in communion with it, is an appropriate response to the gravity of what the Bishops are doing?

A sort of Quantum Province, both in and out at the same time?

2. Or are they prepared to walk away without all of the endowments which currently sustain their ministry -- historic buildings, clergy housing and stipends etc -- to form a new Free Church? (Clergy, according to English law, retain their pension rights.)

Of course there will be some who depart individually to join Rome, Orthodoxy, and a variety of Free Churches.

The choice is to keep the money and assets and remain in communion with a Fallen denomination -- or to walk away empty handed but with integrity maintained.

For more read this:
https://christiantoday.com/article/what.happens.to.church.property.if.evangelical.congregations.leave.the.church.of.england/141939.htm