This document plainly requires us not to question the nature of the relationships of those coming for baptism, confirmation or Holy Communion who are in registered Civil Partnerships even though many are likely to be in practising homosexual relationships. This effectively bars us from the kind of patient and loving scriptural discipleship that we regard as fundamental to Anglican ministry.

We try to preach and demonstrate the love of God in Christ for forgiveness and grace for repentance from sin, for all who trust in Christ whatever their cultural, social or sexual background or orientation. We have a number of homosexuals coming to our churches who welcome our help in living, like heterosexuals, with the joy of forgiveness of sexual sin and the challenge to repentance under the discipline of God's Word to keep sexual activity for heterosexual marriage. In standing against the secular tide of self-indulgence, their faithfulness to the Bible is heroic and must be supported.

Just this week, some of them have personally thanked me for defending their struggle. It is also, according to 1 Corinthians 6:9, a first-order, salvation issue (however politically incorrect). Scripture plainly forbids homosexual activity. As the Bishops put it in Issues in Human Sexuality: "There is ... in Scripture an evolving convergence on the ideal of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union as the setting intended by God for the proper development of men and women as sexual beings. Sexual activity of any kind outside marriage comes to be seen as sinful, and homosexual practice as especially dishonourable," (2.29). But it is obvious to us that this Bishops' new statement on Civil Partnerships assumes the legitimising of gay sex.

This not only contravenes Lambeth Resolution 1:10 but as Issues makes clear in the quote above, is contrary to Scripture and therefore is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, which by law has to be scriptural and which, under the Canons of the Church of England, the Bishops have a special duty to uphold.

I realise that many wish the situation was different in the Church of England, but for now, it isn't. Our view is confirmed by the statement of 103 delegates representing two-thirds of the Anglican Communion from 20 provinces at the meeting of Global South Bishops in Egypt last week.

They identify the present crisis as "provoked by North American intransigence" and declare unambiguously, "The unscriptural innovations of North American and some western provinces on issues of human sexuality undermine the basic message of redemption and the power of the cross to transform lives.

These departures are a symptom of a deeper problem, which is the diminution of the authority of Holy Scripture. The leaders of these provinces disregard the plain teaching of Scripture". Our interpretation of the Bible, of this crisis and of this latest Bishops' Statement enjoys the support of the wider Anglican Communion. This support has been conveyed with private encouragements from two Archbishops and many others in wider Anglican Communion.

I wrote to the Bishop of Southwark on September 16 asking him to distance himself from the Bishops' Statement and asking for affirmations that he understands sexual activity to be restricted to heterosexual marriage. He replied refusing to do so.

This has now left us temporarily in impaired communion with him and looking elsewhere for Episcopal ministry including the selection of our candidates for training, ordination of our eligible staff and the oversight of our congregations (of which we have eight in Southwark Diocese).

We have for three years been asking the Bishop of Southwark to ordain fully trained staff to our planted congregations, who are entirely funded, paid and housed, by our own trust funds, provided sacrificially by the congregations. Both of the eligible staff, Richard Perkins and Andy Fenton, are already each running congregations of more than 100 adults under my direction.

Both of them have been operating in other parishes with the explicit permission of the relevant parish priests, though they belong to a different tradition. We cannot understand why the Bishop has felt unable to ordain these trained, funded staff for our plants at a time when "Fresh Expressions" of church are supposed to be encouraged and facilitated under the recommendations of "Mission-shaped Church".

We have thriving young congregations meeting in schools, a wine-bar and now a sports centre as well as in traditional church buildings but we need the support of the Diocese and not its obstruction.

No doubt we have made mistakes, but we are just trying to reach the unchurched with the love of Christ (and there is no evidence of any "sheep-stealing" in any of our plants). God has grown our numbers in Southwark from 40 to 640 adults and we wanted our ministries recognised and resourced rather than criticised and undermined. We realise that the Bishop of Southwark must balance many issues of which we are not aware. But if earlier he had found a way of ordaining our staff, we would not have needed to go further.

Now, however, with our communion impaired, we looked elsewhere for the ordinations needed. I had enquired of Bishop Morrison's willingness to ordain our staff (the two English ordinands and a South African ordinand) some while ago. At any time we could have withdrawn from proceeding if our conversations with the Bishop of Southwark had shown him to be upholding a biblical position.

However, after consultation with senior evangelicals here and abroad, we decided to go ahead in order to keep our men in the Anglican tradition which we believe in and have no intention of leaving. The Bishop of Southwark knew of our need of ordination from our repeated requests and that our impaired communion would necessitate our looking for valid but irregular ordinations.

In the event, the ordination was supported by many "mainstream evangelical" leaders, including the Chairman of Reform, the Chairman of the Fellowship of Word and Spirit, the General Secretary of Crosslinks, the Chairman of Church Society, a leader from Anglican Mainstream, leaders from the New Wine Network, two Canons, members of General Synod and leaders of large churches from across the diocese and the nation who came to express publicly their support.

The ordination was explicitly supported by a resolution of the Reform National Conference and by more than 500 in the congregation. I didn't recruit all this support - it was volunteered because other evangelicals feel so strongly against the Bishops' Statement on Civil Partnerships and agree with our stand. We have been inundated with letters of support from mainstream evangelicals and without any campaign the letter of support on our website already contains over 100 Anglican clergy.

There is a great deal of dismay amongst mainstream evangelicals about a perceived reinvention of the Christian faith once delivered and we feel bound by Scripture (Jude 3-4) and by our ordination oaths to "contend for the faith" and to "drive away error".

I think it is fair to expect more action of this kind by other evangelicals unless bishops draw back from trying to impose what is seen as revision of the Bible by liberalising bishops.

I have been asked to explain how I can, in conscience, disobey my diocesan bishop. I have done so with great reluctance and sadness. This is not personal but theological and our debate has been cordial.

My obligation, as a Christian, is first to God and his Word and I feel bound, in conscience, to disobey my bishop where he asks me to do something contrary to the plain meaning of Scripture and especially where my interpretation is supported by history, by scholarship and by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion.

Moreover, my oath of obedience was only of canonical obedience and "in all things lawful and honest", which I understand to be obedience only to such requests as are permitted by both the canons and the law of the land and honest to the truth of the Scriptures.

Where the House of Bishops requires me to contravene Scripture, as it has, I must obey God rather than Man, for Jesus said, "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory..." (Mark 8:38).