Welby responds to the primates of Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda regarding Lambeth conference

Some Protestants hold to the literal sense of the "priesthood of all believers" in which there is no clear division between "clergy" and "lay" members. I've been to several Primitive Baptist and Pentecostal churches that are like that. The task of preaching either follows a fixed rotation, or the congregation simply assembles and lets the Spirit guide them on who preaches on any given Sunday. "Teaching" is done by the Holy Spirit, or so they say; charismatics are very big on "letting the Bible speak" rather than studying the Bible as an intellectual exercise. So preaching and teaching in these churches tends to be communal and rather disordered. Doctrine is much less important than emotion and feeling, being carried along by the Holy Spirit (the source of the term "holy roller", if you didn't know).

But I personally think this (lack of) structure runs afoul of Biblical teaching, especially Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy and Titus, and it tends to give rise to a tornado of theological confusion and error. We can argue about what the Greek presbyteros and episkopos really refer to regarding the ancient church, but I think it is clear that God means a Christian church to be a hierarchy where an elder male is appointed to hold teaching authority over a congregation, and deacons are appointed to assist him in his pastoral role. The need to scale this structure up requires more senior men (bishops) to exercise pastoral authority over larger areas. The process for choosing these men is open to a bit of interpretation, but I think most churches at least try to follow the guidance laid down by Paul in 1 Timothy. Ordination as the ritualized practice it is today, at least in the Anglican sense, is part of our attempt to honor our historical lineage -- the laying on of hands symbolizes the connection back in time to the apostolic age, and stresses the continuity of leadership. It's a good practice, one I approve of. Whereas many Protestant churches seem to be blown to and fro by every passing fad, Anglicans (at their best, anyway) represent a reassuring oasis of stability in an ocean of cultural chaos.

I have said often that I prefer the Episcopal form of church government for practical reasons, but I also happen to think that is Biblical as well. One pastor may work for smaller congregations, but larger congregations demand more pastors, who in turn need senior guidance, etc. I don't think the episcopal form is the only Biblically-acceptable way to run a church, but it I do think is the best way.

 

Sometimes I wonder if the presbyterian form isn’t more practical (on paper at least), but since we’re stuck with the episcopal form by tradition, we might as well make the best of it.

 

I come out of the Baptist/congregationalist position, and over the years I've become less and less fond of the "board of directors" ecclesiastical model. In my experience, it just leads to gridlock on one hand and cronyism on the other. Chains of command get confused, and the lack of higher organized structures lead churches to form "conventions" (like the Southern Baptist Convention) that wield at once far too much power (in terms of money and influence) and too little power (in terms of actually enforcing church discipline and orthodoxy). Bureaucracy tends to run away in the larger churches, and a ministry that should be run for the glory of God just becomes another business. The congregational model just doesn't scale all that well.

The Anglican episcopal/conciliar approach is not perfect (as we have recent proof), but I think it works far better on a day-to-day basis as an organizing and operational body that ensures doctrinal coherence, acts as a good custodian of church resources, and directs energetic mission and outreach work. An episcopal model is (or can be, at least) more directed and focused in its energy. A good bishop can get a whole lot of meaningful stuff done in a short amount of time, unlike a more bureaucracy-bound model where a presbytery must gain consensus over every single thing. And bad bishops are still controlled by the provincial superstructure of archbishops and the college of bishops.

 

Thank you, I stand corrected.

 

I don't know what planet you live on with this interpretation, but I would suggest a reading of:
-any of the central Anglican theologians like Bilson, Andrews, Overall which provide the theological ground for the formularies;
-how the formularies have been actually received by the Church (rather than how they appear to you); from the 1662 Ordinal down to the Lambeth Quadrilateral;
-and actual tangible practice of the last 500 years of Anglican history. How people approached taking sacraments in non-Anglican contexts. Did Anglican theologians consider non-episcopalian ministry a lay institution (and even a heresy). Spoiler: yes, they called it "Aerianism", from the heresy of Aerius who was a proto-presbyterian.

So to sum up, you simply won't find any historic Anglican theologians who will espouse the views you just did, prior to the liberalized 1960s. But you will find scores of theologians, for hundreds of years, who echo the views expressed by @bwallac2335 or myself or others from the traditionalist camp.

At this point we can see the differences present in the theological formation of today's Episcopal Church, versus the orthodox or the traditional Anglican school. The differences couldn't be more starkly visible, than here. You have a radical anabaptist view of ministry, sacraments, indeed all of theology, where all of it is essentially man-made, and thus up for revision. This basic mindset forces you to give room to anyone deviating from orthodoxy, because nothing can truly qualify as an orthodoxy; for instance you've passionately denied the existence of the soul. Episcopalianism 1.0.

https://forums.anglican.net/threads/supreme-court-ends-roe-v-wade.4706/page-6#post-54546

I don't see the point of discussing this further, if the underlying mindsets, the basic ways of thought about the elemental aspects of theology, are so far apart.

 

I cited published sources from the mid-19th century, who were ordained bishops at the time. They're in the public domain; have you read them?

Actually, I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of Anglo-Catholic leaning Episcopalians who would disagree with me as well. It is an instance of the fallacy "it must have been so, therefore it was so".

This is disingenuous in the extreme. As I made abundantly clear above, I adhere to the magisterial Confessions (including the Articles of Religion), which I cited above. Allowing that non-episcopal churches can be true Churches has literally nothing to do with Anabaptism. That's absolutely absurd. But don't take my word for it, take Bishop Gilbert Burnet's (1643-1715) comments on Article 33:

[If] a company of Christians find the public worship where they live to be so defiled that they cannot with a good conscience join in it, and if they do not know of any place to which they can conveniently go, where they may worship God purely, and in a regular way; if, I say, such a body finding some that have been ordained, though to the lower functions, should submit itself entirely to their conduct, or finding none of those, should by a common consent desire some of their own number to minister to them in holy things, and should upon that beginning grow up to a regulated constitution, though we are very sure that this is quite out of all rule, and could not be done without a very great sin, unless the necessity were great and apparent; yet if the necessity is real and not feigned, this is not condemned or annulled by the Article; for when this grows to a constitution, and when it was begun by the consent of a body, who are supposed to have an authority in such an extraordinary case, whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this since that time; yet we are very sure, that not only those who penned the Articles, but the body of this church for above half an age after, did, notwithstanding those irregularities, acknowledge the foreign churches so constituted, to be true churches as to all the essentials of a church, though they had been at first irregularly formed, and continued still to be in an imperfect state. And therefore the general words in which this part of the Article is framed, seem to have been designed on purpose not to exclude them.​

If the Continental Reformed and Lutheran Churches are indeed "true churches" in "all the essentials of a Church", this means that apostolic succession, which they indisputably lack, cannot be numbered among these "essentials", despite what "some hotter spirits have thought of this since that time." Burnet's language here is clear and unambiguous. You may recall that Burnet's commentary was a standard textbook for doctrinal training in both England and America for centuries afterward. The view presented by Burnet was indeed representative of the mainstream of Anglican thought prior to the Oxford Movements and was the view received by the Church in England. That's why the mid-19th century bishops defended it.

No, I have denied that souls have any inherent attribute that would explain conscious life after death. Belief in an afterlife is a matter of faith, not science or philosophy, and the explanation for it must be supernatural, i.e., an act of God. In other words, I can (and do) affirm life after death without recognizing any need to affirm that the soul is by nature immortal. There is no defined dogma that contradicts this, therefore it is a perfectly orthodox opinion to hold (E.A. Litton, in his Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, reached the same conclusion), and it is a more parsimonious interpretation of the biblical data than the attempt to harmonize it with Hellenistic anthropological dualism.

The plain wording of the Confessions and the early English commentaries on the Articles of Religion (which Burnet's is one example), as well as the writings of Richard Hooker, among others, speak for themselves, and should make it plain to any disinterested observer that I do indeed live on this planet, that the facts I have cited are of the actual history of Anglicanism and not the Tractarian revisionism which has unfortunately become commonplace in North America, and that this has nothing to do with any refusal to accept 'Anglican orthodoxy'. Anglican orthodoxy is precisely what I have relied on to elucidate my position in the first place.

 

To clarify further my earlier argument, historic Anglicanism, as it is presented in the Ordinal, the Articles, commentaries on the same, episcopal letters from the first several centuries after the Reformation, etc., seems to be committed to (at least) two propositions simultaneously:

1. Episcopacy is the historic norm, and necessary for the perfection of the Ministry of the Church;
2. No judgment is made regarding the ministry, sacraments, etc., of those Churches possessing non-episcopal ordination.

A fitting analogy might be that of a person born without an arm or leg, to one born without such defects. Each person in this case is truly and fully human, yet the latter is also complete, as such, in a way that the former plainly is not. Richard Hooker, in Book 7 of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, illustrates the common sense and moderation that makes holding both of these propositions in one system possible:

The whole Church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain: howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary ways.

Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways admitted unto spiritual functions in the Church. One is, when God himself doth of himself raise up any, whose labour he useth without requiring that men should authorize them; but then he doth ratify their calling by manifest signs and tokens himself from heaven...

Another extraordinary kind of vocation is, when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep; where the church must needs have some ordained, and neither hath nor can have possibly a bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity, the ordinary institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may give, place. And therefore we are not simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination. These cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may ordain but only bishops...
​

Echoing some of Melanchthon's language in the Defense of the Augsburg Confession (quoted in a previous post in this thread), Hooker's language here, as in the previously cited case of Burnet, couldn't be clearer. If anyone is representative of the historic Anglican mainstream, it is Hooker. He insisted on episcopal ordination, yet refused to impugn those Churches lacking it. This is not because Hooker merely had good manners; it is because he believed in the sovereignty of God. His moderate approach and conclusions are in striking contrast to statements from more recent Anglican theologians of a more "Anglo-Catholic" bent, such as C.B. Moss. One of the things I love most about Anglicanism is that if one is in possession of all the facts, and applies common sense to a new problem, the solution more often than not turns out to be recognizable as a classic Anglican answer. There were, of course, differences of opinion in 18th century England (see attached article) about just where the boundary between the Church of England and the Continental Protestants was. The fact that there was controversy on the matter shows that there was no pre-existing consensus conforming to later Tractarian lines.

 

That is why I said you can't be sure of their sacraments.
The following seems to agree with my statement. If you can't be sure of the sacraments and you could go to a church where you could be sure of the sacraments then you go to the church where you can be sure of the sacraments. Because of women bishop in the Episcopal Church I can't be sure and no one can be sure of the sacraments performed even by male priests.

1. Episcopacy is the historic norm, and necessary for the perfection of the Ministry of the Church;
2. No judgment is made regarding the ministry, sacraments, etc., of those Churches possessing non-episcopal ordination.
   

 

What is there not to be sure of, and why would that even be a question at all? It's very simple: Were the outward signs performed or not? The sacraments are commands, not magic. They're outward signs of an inward spiritual reality. The minister, worthy or not, does not cause that inward reality (cf. Art. 26). To take the case of a hypothetical Lutheran pastor, for example,

• Was he/she ordained according to the rules of his/her Synod? Check.
• Is the intent of the authorized liturgy to perform the sacraments as commanded? Check.
• Is that what the pastor actually did? Check.

If these conditions are met, the testimony of your eyes is all that's required to confirm that a sacrament was actually performed. That's the beauty of it. The ability to verify these things with our senses is why we have the outward signs in the first place, and that's all the Articles and the Catechism teach. Anything more than that is simply something other than Anglicanism.

You appear to be connecting the regularity of the episcopal succession with the effectiveness of the administration of the sacraments, which is something the historic formularies not only did not do, but also something which their authoritative interpreters specifically understood them to intend not to do. Otherwise, why would someone like Bishop Gilbert Burnet state in no uncertain terms that the Continental Lutheran and Reformed Churches were "true Churches" and possessed "all the essentials" of the Church (which includes the sacraments by the Articles' own definition), despite not having episcopacy?

I've documented the evidence that what I've described above is in fact the authentic, historic Anglican understanding extensively in this thread; I don't know what else I could say about it if those sources aren't evidence enough of what Anglican teaching on the subject has actually been. Objectively verifiable facts often seem to matter very little on this Forum (that's not directed at you personally).

 

I would just argue that Bishop Gilbert Burnet was just wrong. You cite something as the authentic, historic Anglican understanding. I claim that the understanding has deepened and grown in time. Just because it was what was originally believed by some and maybe even by the biggest names at the time in the Anglican Church does not make it correct. You have to interpret things in light of the traditions of the church catholic teach that once valid Episcopacy is lost you have no sacraments that you can be sure of. The Anglican correction from Rome was initially to drastic and had to be tempered by later people and brought back into line.

1. Episcopacy is the historic norm, and necessary for the perfection of the Ministry of the Church;
2. No judgment is made regarding the ministry, sacraments, etc., of those Churches possessing non-episcopal ordination.
   
   But once again if you make a non judgement on something that m eans you don't confirm or deny it but leave it open on the validity of it. It is in essence something we can't be sure of.

 

Ok, but that’s not Anglicanism. Burnet wasn’t some nobody; he was a bishop of the Church, exercising his teaching office. The Articles are either binding or they aren’t. Burnet was either presenting the correct interpretation of them, i.e., reproducing their authors’ intended meaning, or he wasn’t. Sources roughly contemporary with him - Hooker, other bishops’ correspondence, etc. - overwhelmingly support the conclusion that he interpreted the Articles according to their intent. The subsequent reception of his work further confirms this. The Episcopal Church still holds to this: we do not compromise on episcopal succession and we strive to have as good relations with other Churches as we possibly can.

I’m not telling you what you should believe. I am saying it’s misleading to call what you’re describing “Anglicanism” when it’s demonstrably not, at least on this subject. Anglicanism has never taught that episcopal succession constitutes the Church; indeed, the Church has existed without it before, viz., the apostolic age. What is the motivation for claiming to be Anglican if in the same breath the historic doctrine of Anglicanism is rejected glibly (“he was just wrong”) and replaced with something a hair’s breadth away from Roman Catholicism? And this is supposed to somehow replace the Episcopal Church’s alleged lack of fidelity to Anglican tradition? I don’t get it.

 

The answer is really simple: Burnet was in the first generation of whats known as the Latitudinarians, which over the course of time (centuries), evolved into the Liberal theologians which so disfigure the Western parts of the Anglican world today.

Burnet was by no means an orthodox or traditionalist during his time, as his contemporaries all acknowledged. His writings are replete with efforts to water down Anglican distinctives. The Liberal/Latitudinarian mindset which he (and a few others of his time) gave birth to, believed that excessive Christianity was a source of ill in the world, The Thirty Years War, etc. Consequently what had to be done, from his point of view, was to minimize religious differences, and take the edge off religious belief, to submit us to a few simple and basic Christian affirmations like the Creed, over which there wouldn't be much dispute. This is literally the mindset you find in the 1900s Ecumenical movement, and especially as crystallized in the Episcopal Church, the mainline churches, and the Roman Catholics of today. All of these modern religious mindsets take their root in the thought of Gilbert Burnet and the other Latitudinarians of the ancient and hoary 1670s.

But thankfully Burnet was in a small minority during his time. Many zealous and fiery theologians re-asserted the Anglican distinctives, and what so many saints and martyrs have died to preserve across centuries and millennia.

I just did a quick search on Google, and came up with these:

Henry Maurice, A vindication of the Primitive Church and Diocesan Episcopacy, in Answer to Mr. Baxter (1682)
-here is a discussion of it by Paul Lim of the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church):
http://books.google.com/books?id=qZQeQa1MoxkC&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q&f=false

John Jacques, Ordination by meer presbyters prov'd void and null : in a conference between Philalethes a Presbyter of the Church of England, and Pseudocheus a Dissenting teacher (1707)

Robert Calder, The divine right of episcopacy asserted. Wherein is proved, that episcopacy is of divine, and Apostolical Institution: and that it was the Government of the Christian Church during the three first ages of it (1708)

Edward Drury, The divine right of episcopacy truly stated. In answer to a book intituled, A clear account of the ancient episcopacy (1714)


But more importantly, Burnet violates the principles enunciated by our Reformers. Here is Lancelot Andrewes, proving to a French Presbyterian minister that rejecting episcopacy is the heresy of Aerius:
https://www.anglican.net/works/lanc...three-epistles-of-peter-moulin-answered-1647/

Here's Thomas Bilson in 1593 showing the divine constitution of the Church, deviations from it in the ancient church by the presbyter Aerius, and his modern followers (in the 1590s):
https://books.google.com/books?id=cuI0AQAAIAAJ

Archbishop Bancroft in 1588 preached the famous sermon at St. Paul's Cross, where he discussed a 'new heresy' of Aerianism arising during his time. Can't find the Google Books for it, but found it here: https://www.anglican.net/works/richard-bancroft-sermon-preached-at-pauls-cross-1588/

 

Because without having the time to go through and bring up books and citations while at work and taking care of children I can't bring up the counter arguments to your position stated by Anglican Divines that predate the Oxford Movement. I would hold that he was just wrong on this instance and other divines contradict him or at least your understanding of him. It is clear that the church has taught that without Episcopal Consecration constitutes the church or why kicked out all non consecrated by a bishop priests as they did in the late 1600's. I would also not say that Hooker was roughly contemporary with him. Hooker died in 1600. Burnet was born in 1643. He was a good half century after Hooker.

But I love this quick quote that I found about him and his adherence to the 39 Articles "Hampton 2008, p. 30. Gilbert Burnet was, therefore, being attacked for introducing too much latitude in the interpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, especially in the matter of soteriology. But the latitude he was specifically attempting to introduce [...] was a breadth which could encompass an Arminian reading of the Articles"

Also he was a Laudatudian. They were known for their inclusiveness and they are not exactly orthodox but more broad and open and almost something known as merely protestant but let each other stay in their respective groups.

 

1. Who cares? I didn't ask which party he belonged to (that's irrelevant); that's just a weak ad hominem attack. After all, who's to say the Latitudinarian interpretation isn't the correct one? What matters is (a) whether the Articles are binding, and (b) whether Burnet's, et al, interpretation of them was correct, as a matter of historical fact? No matter how many times you redirect, neither you nor anyone else on here has presented evidence that the Church of England ever declared the sacraments of the Continental Churches to be invalid of ineffective, and something like that should be pretty easy to find if your theory is correct. I've searched far and wide for such a declarative statement, and I came up with nothing. The lack of evidence is what led me to reconsider my own position on the issue (I came to Anglicanism from Eastern Orthodoxy, remember.).
2. This doesn't all depend on Burnet, as I've already documented. Hooker and Jewel said basically the same thing, for starters; if we make your opinion the arbiter of these things, we'd have to throw out their works, too. If we follow you and @bwallac2335 and get rid of anything that reminds us of the Reformation and the solidarity the Church of England had with the Continental Reformers, then the history of Anglican theological writing wouldn't even begin until the mid-1800s. That doesn't sound very "traditional" to me.
3. Apparently you can quote Burnet as an authority, but I can't.
https://forums.anglican.net/threads/anglican-eucharist-theology.4182/page-7#post-43810


Nice try.

 

Then why don't the historic Formularies say that? Above you were clear that in your opinion early Anglicanism got it wrong. Now you're claiming early Anglicanism supports your position (though without evidence). Which is it?

Here are the relevant passages from the Articles, again:

Art. 19
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

Art. 20
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written...

Art. 26
Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise...

Art. 34
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like...

There's not a blessed thing in any of that about episcopal succession constituting the Church (the word 'succession' isn't to be found a single time in the Articles), or "valid" bishops being necessary for "valid" sacraments, or other Protestant Churches having doubtful sacraments. Nothing. If you did not derive these things from actual Anglican teaching (and you didn't), where did you get them from, and why do you simultaneously claim and then not claim that they are authentically Anglican? Every one of these sources are in the public domain and available for free to anyone who wants to read them. The relevant passages are easy to find, they aren't difficult to read, and it doesn't take a lot of time. With respect, your objections simply don't make any sense. You can believe what you want, obviously, but nothing you have said gives any insight as to why you would want to be or call yourself an Anglican. You make a very compelling Newman-esque case for Roman Catholicism, so long as one agrees with your basic assumptions.

Exchanges like this are truly remarkable. Is the ACNA really this confused about what it is?
"The English Reformation got it wrong."
Also, "we believe what the Church of England has always taught" (except you don't).
"Bishop X was a 'Latitudinarian', and (for some reason) that means he's not a reliable witness to what Anglican doctrine is."
But, "we're going to cite Bishop X as representative of Anglican doctrine when arguing with the Eastern Orthodox."
"We left your Church because you ordain women."
Also, "we ordain women, too, and we're against it!"
And on, and on, and on. How can all of these contrary ideas subsist simultaneously in one coherent body? How is this much aversion to facts and reason supposed to result in any kind of consensus that can be built upon? I don't see it. If it's women pastors and the real presence and apostolic succession that you care about, why not just join the ACC? They've been around for decades. Why start your own, brand new denomination?

I have little doubt that if exchanges like this are in any way representative, the ACNA will not be recognizably Anglican 50 years from now, and some of the comments here make me think it's coming even sooner. Despite the fact that the Episcopal Church has never treated the Articles of Religion as a binding formulary in the same way that the Lutherans have historically treated the Augsburg Confession, I see precious little in the Articles that doesn't accurately describe ordinary Episcopalian practice today. That's because we didn't cut ourselves off from the rest of the tree.

 

They are not liturgically compatible. Those who are liturgically compatible are not generally theologically compatible. And among a few of the founding ACNA bishops there was a level of residual butthurt from past dealings with the ACC - though those guys have retired.

 

Just to answer the last things Invictus said:

I quoted Burnet there precisely because even someone liberal and latitudinarian like him affirmed that the Divine Service is a sacrifice. Where Burnet departs from orthodoxy, he shouldn't be followed. But if even he affirms an orthodox point, then that point is simply irreproachable. So in the context of Christian worship as sacrifice, Burnet repeated the traditional line, so I quoted him on that. On the nature of sacraments and ministry, he was way off. On that I wouldn't follow him. And his contemporaries didn't follow him.

Sure they do. The 1662 Ordinal explicitly states that an ordination must be conducted by a bishop, in order to be valid. In this it goes direct against the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian teaching that episcopal ordinations are just a nice to have. The 1662 Ordinal explicitly disqualifies anyone who hasn't had an episcopal ordination. We have a higher view of church ministry than the Roman Catholics do (see thread).

And when 2000-2500 ministers after the Great Rebellion failed to show their episcopal credentials, they were dismissed in one of the great moments of church history, the Great Ejection, where one Sunday morning twenty five hundred ministers were classified as laymen and barred from any further ministry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ejection

 

The African Archbishops respond to Welby's missive.

The response letter essentially recapitulates the discussion we've been having here. The tone of the Archbishops' response is pretty tart:

This is something I've asserted all along: this is not an issue where faithful Anglicans can "agree to disagree". It is not adiaphora. This issue touches the very heart of our faith and our obedience to the will of God as expressed in Holy Scripture. It is a salvific issue.

Also, ACNA Abp. Beach confirms that he won't be attending Lambeth.

 

Good luck producing a church that never does or teaches anything objectionable to some of its members. If you guys sincerely believe that a strong voice putting forth your point of view is what the upcoming council may lack, what purpose is served by boycotting it? That just seems very counterproductive.

Regarding the underlying issue, regardless of one’s underlying assumptions about how the biblical text is to be read, understood, and applied today, the fact remains that for all practical purposes the only definition of marriage that actually matters is the State’s. It is the State that licenses, records, and dissolves marriages. Since marriage is not a sacrament in Anglicanism, the priest is simply doing 2 things when she blesses a marriage:
1. She is acting as a notary for the State;
2. She is giving the Church’s blessing to a new endeavor.
In doing the latter, it need not be taken as equivalent to an endorsement. The Church can, for example, publicly pray for the success of the nation in war and declare that the was is itself unjust in some manner.

There are any number of properly moral commands from the Pentateuch that Christians have rightly decided to disregard over the centuries; it’s not at all clear why a minority have picked this particular issue to fixate upon. There are far more pressing matters that ought to be demanding our attention now.