THE latest General Synod debate on Living in Love and Faith (LLF) didn’t reach a final vote, as an alternative ending on Tuesday morning in a widely supported procedural motion to maneuver to next business.
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, proposed that the controversy be cut short after an amendment calling for “legally secure structural provision” had been defeated.
“This just isn’t intended as any form of partisan move,” she said, but got here out of a recognition that that there have been many on each side of the controversy who felt that they’d be higher served by moving on to other discussions, and returning to LLF in July after further work had been done.
The successful motion to maneuver to next business implies that the motion cannot brought back in the identical form before 2026. It is unlikely to derail the LLF process, nevertheless. Rather, Dr Threlfall-Holmes argued, this might give the Synod the prospect to make a greater informed decision, as signing a “blank cheque” to approve a set of draft commitments made her feel uneasy, and would mean that she couldn’t personally vote for the motion.
It seemed that many agreed, and the vote was carried 322-69, with 20 recorded abstentions.
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, thanked members for a very good debate, and expressed hope for the long run, saying that the presence of a giant cohort of conservatives within the Synod gave him confidence that a split within the Church could possibly be avoided: “You wouldn’t be here when you didn’t consider some extent of communion was possible.”
On Monday evening, before the controversy was adjourned overnight, Ed Shaw (Bristol) had moved an amendment searching for acknowledgement that, for some members, the problems raised by LLF “should not matters on which they will simply conform to disagree”.
Honesty concerning the depth of disagreement was vital, he said, and was vital for the controversy to maneuver forward.
The Revd Dr Mark Smith (Universities and TEIs) commended the amendment as shedding “much needed light on the way in which ahead”.
However, Kenson Li (co-opted) argued that the amendment was unhelpful, because it suggested that reconciliation was inconceivable, an objection echoed by Bishop Snow, who thanked Mr Shaw, but said the accepting the amendment would risk conceding that there was no approach to move forward together.
The amendment was lost.
Since the resignation of the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley (News, 1 February), Bishop Snow has been leading the LLF process alone, and the motion in debate was recommend in his name quite than the House of Bishops as an entire.
The motion called for a “deal with reconciliation and bridge-building”, alongside a commitment to “pursue the implementation of the motions previously passed by Synod”.
Introducing the motion on Monday afternoon, he foreshadowed what was to occur on Tuesday morning, saying that “whether or not we get to a proper vote, the work goes on”.
He reiterated earlier comments about his commitment to the unity of the Church, alongside his belief that the selections made on the February and November meetings last 12 months ought to be implemented.
Speakers from all sides paid credit to Bishop Snow’s efforts, thanking him for attempting to improve the tone of the controversy.
The Revd Joy Mawdesley (Oxford) said that she thought all members were grateful, and that she welcomed the deal with reconciliation. None the less, she moved an amendment changing the verb describing Synod’s receipt of the motion from “welcome” to “note”.
The ten commitments referred to within the motion and outlined within the accompanying paper weren’t finalised, she noted, and this made it difficult to welcome them in case they modified — a degree reiterated by Dr Threlfall-Holmes at the tip of the controversy.
One of the primary speakers on Monday afternoon was the Revd Rachel Webbley (Canterbury), who’s a co-convener of the anti-racist network on the General Synod. She warned against any imputation that individuals of global-majority heritage (GMH) had a “homogenous perspective” on problems with LGBT inclusion.
In a social-media post on Monday evening, the previous Archbishops’ adviser for Minority-Ethnic Anglican Concerns, Dr Sanjee Perera, said that she was “weary of seeing GMH views within the Anglican Communion scapegoated as a voice against equal marriage. There is extraordinary variance and a spectrum of differences amongst UKME/GMH people (including silenced LGBTQI+ voices around the worldwide south) on sexuality.”
When the controversy resumed on Tuesday morning, there was unanimity when an amendment, proposed by Jane Patterson (Sheffield), passed without opposition. It added a clause welcoming a “greater emphasis on openness and transparency” in the method.
In a speech in support of the amendment, the Revd Neil Patterson (Hereford), noted that he rarely spoke in agreement along with his unrelated namesake. Transparency was vital, though, for progress to be made, and a part of the aim of LLF was “coming out from hiddenness and hypocrisy”, he said.
The amendment passed without the necessity for a counted vote — a rarity in the midst of the LLF debates.
The Revd Charlie Skrine (London) then moved an amendment calling for a “settlement based on legally secure structural provision”. He asked those that had voted against Mr Shaw’s amendment: “Is it that you think that we don’t exist, or that you just don’t want us to be here?”
He said that he couldn’t see how communion could possibly be maintained except with structural changes. “Show me that you just consider in unity by being willing to explore changes to structure,” he said.
Despite opposing the amendment, the Revd Jody Stowell (London) said that she had sympathy, and understood that some provision was vital — but that it shouldn’t “draw a thick, solid line through the center of parishes”.
In a relatively rare moment of strong language, James Wilson (Manchester) suggested that the sort of provision Mr Skrine was proposing amounted to “schism in all but pension fund”, and urged members to withstand it. From the conservative side, Sophie Clarke (London) implored liberal members to “set us free” by agreeing to structural changes.
The Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, supported Mr Skrine’s amendment, mirroring his sponsorship of comparable amendments brought, unsuccessfully, at meetings of the House of Bishops. He didn’t want to “ditch” his liberal colleagues, he said — although they could ditch him first, and he wouldn’t blame them in the event that they did.
Mr Skrine’s amendment was lost in all Houses: Bishops 8-24, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 78-98, with eight recorded abstentions; and Laity 81-100, with seven recorded abstentions.
It was immediately after this vote that Dr Threlfall-Holmes made her successful intervention to request that the Synod move to next business.
