Some are very happy with what is a clear trajectory: namely for what appear to be sexually-active relationships outside of heterosexual marriage to be blessed, including for clergy.

Some may not currently agree with the new forms of blessing, but do not consider this something to split over. They claim that it is possible to hold on the one hand a thoroughly orthodox and historic commitment to the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, that being the only godly place for sexual relationships, and on the other that those who seek to bless other sexually active relationships are equally sincere and therefore should not be challenged (let alone condemned). They might even claim that this new teaching is not adiaphora (matters indifferent) but still falls short of heresy or blasphemy (here defined as seeking to sanctify that which God calls sin).

But what of those "remainers" who believe the new forms of prayers are wholly idolatrous? That these new prayers seek to bless behaviour which clearly God does not bless, but rather does clearly condemn. For those who think church leaders should be clearer in saying what they mean and meaning what they say? For those who believe that the gospel tells the whole of humanity that we are more wicked and deceived than we ever want to think we are, but that in Christ Jesus, we are more loved than we will ever, even in eternity, truly understand. This means that God calls each of us to find life and fulfilment, in every way, in Christ.

There are, no doubt, many reasons why those who hold these views remain in the Church of England.

On a local level, clergy are committed to the people of their local church (or churches) and parish. The machinations of what is being spoken about at diocesan and national level do not always affect the local church, and certainly not immediately. (This is perhaps one reason why things have developed as they have: many faithful, orthodox local churches have simply 'got on with the ministry' and ignored the responsibility to contend for the gospel at diocesan and national levels).

There are other reasons holding clergy back, either permanently or for the time being, from making the decision to leave. If they are married, they need to ensure their spouse is supportive. If they have children, then the relative cost of up-rooting and moving (which may include changing schools) should not be underestimated. The financial challenge of providing housing and an income, especially if there is a family, should also not be ignored.
It is one thing being ejected from a church or ministry for faithfulness; it is quite another to jump ship without a place to live or income to provide for those for whom one is responsible.

There will be yet others who are committed to remaining, in the full knowledge that the national church is tolerating (and beginning actively to bless) sexual unfaithfulness. How is this possible, many will ask, especially given the warning to the church in Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29)? Or the clear warning of 1 Corinthians 5, to expel the immoral brother?

Our brethren in Australia have warned that those who remain face not a decade, but a century-long 'contending for the gospel' given the contemporary state of decision-making in the Church of England. They may not be wrong. So, again one asks, why stay?
The writer is committed to 'remaining in' until 'kicked out of' the Church of England. He (yes, a man) believes it is the church he was called to serve. He was converted in an Anglican church, and willingly chose to be ordained into the same. He is committed to the local church he serves and is, by the grace of God, seeing fruit in his congregation where the gospel of grace is explained. His wife has seen them suffer as a family for the gospel previously and is thankful to see genuine fruit in this current church fellowship.

He is beginning to take steps to ensure that there is a degree of separation with other clergy who (in his opinion) are showing themselves to be false teachers. He has always presumed there were false teachers in the church, because there have been throughout history.

He doesn't expect others to agree, or even understand. In many ways, he knows it could be easier to leave, but two key points keep him remaining, for the moment.

One is a commitment to perseverance: he reads instructions to pastors in the New Testament as a call to hold others to account, not 'jump ship'. He bears the scars for doing so in the past and does not believe he is afraid to do so again. He listens to friends who have left and respects their decisions. With other orthodox clergy in his chapter, he has already been verbally abused by fellow clergy for his convictions.

The second is personal: those scars have affected his family, and - with the clearest of conscience - he does not believe it would be right to leave his post now. Actually, in times past, he has seen God lead and provide miraculously, but always 'when pushed'. It is a very different matter to leave of one's own accord.

In his book "White Man Walking", Ward Brehm describes how he came to have a wholly different understanding of the challenges that his African tribal friend faced, not just by listening to him over a coffee in his home state of Minnesota, but by travelling to Kenya and spending a week walking together. It is a helpful call to caution before we assume we know all the details of another person's life.

That said, let the final word go to the South Sudanese Archbishop, Justin Badi Arama, who recently said:
"I always say, in Africa we live in tukuls -- when a snake enters your tukul you don't run away, it is the snake -- you chase it away. So, we will struggle -- the liberals - we will chase them out of our beloved Communion."

The Christian 'remainer' may add that they look to the snake lifted high (John 3:14-15) as they hold on, press on and persevere.