THE General Synod decided by a big majority to not vote on the newest motion on Living in Love and Faith (LLF), but to maneuver to next business.
Introducing the talk, LLF lead bishop, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, joked that he was looking forward to retirement. “It’s been an intense few days,” he said, hoping that tiredness wouldn’t affect the tone of the talk. He offered a “heartfelt apology” for not bringing concrete proposals for implementing previous decisions on LLF (News, 10 February 2023), but he would do “all the pieces possible” to bring practical proposals to the Synod in July.
“Whether or not we get to a proper vote, the work goes on,” he insisted. There was “no intention of rowing back” within the suggestions of a “reset” of the LLF process, he said, but emphasised the seriousness of his commitment to maintaining the unity of the Church of England. He also repeated his assurance that the substance of the legal advice received by the House of Bishops was all in the general public realm.
Anglicanism had beenb “born in discord”, Bishop Snow continued. He hoped that the Church could learn from its history and remain unified despite deep disagreements. Calling himself a missionary, he referred to his long family history of overseas mission; he had reached the conclusion that “the missionary imperative is less about ‘Do we or don’t we agree with same-sex marriage?’. That query alone is not going to determine whether the Church grows or shrinks in the approaching years. The missionary imperative today is reconciliation.”
His paper gave an illustration of ten commitments that “might” offer a way forward, he explained, but emphasised that their wording was not final, but, somewhat, indicative of a principle. He begged members to not make a series of speeches through which they simply stated that others needed to agree with them. People weren’t going to alter their minds, he said, though he conceded that his approach — to hunt reconciliation — may not work, either.
The Archdeacon of Dudley, the Ven. Nikki Groarke (Worcester), said that she represented the “silent middle”. Many Evangelicals had shifted towards a more inclusive stance. She believed that a reset was needed to maneuver from “fruitless arguments about why we will’t bless same-sex marriages to fruitful discussions about how we will”. The leadership of the Church must keep in mind that it existed to serve the need of the Synod. She urged the House of Bishops, which, she suggested, also needed a reset, to disregard the calls for differentiation from a “small minority”. “We voted for change as one Church,” she argued. Most within the Church were in a position to disagree with each other without having to fracture unity.
Professor Helen King (Oxford) said that she struggled with the motion and paper. She couldn’t see what could occur between now and the following group of sessions in July; nor could she understand how the varied consultation groups had fed into one another. “We need to be higher at chatting with one another, in one another’s presence, and speaking about one another,” she said. There was a necessity for more work on ecclesiology, about what unity consisted of, and concerning the part played by bishops, she said. Issues in Human Sexuality needs to be scrapped: the Church had managed without it before, and will manage again, until the brand new pastoral guidance was ready, she said.
Jane Rosam (Rochester) said that her rural parish, which encompassed the breadth of traditions, worked hard to conform to disagree with kindness. She was a licensed lay employee and was married to her same-sex partner of 30 years. There were many more like her in peculiar parishes, who were upset by large neighbouring wealthy Evangelical parishes that had cut off contributions to the diocese, for fear of being “tainted” by association, she said. Little parishes like hers weren’t going away, and longed for space to “be the people God made us to be”.
The Revd Rachel Webbley (Canterbury) had been “alarmed”, she said, by a number of the references to global-majorityiheritage (GMH) people within the Synod paper that was being debated. Grouping people in this manner risked suggesting that they held a “homogeneous perspective” on problems with LGBT inclusion, she warned.
The Acting Bishop of Coventry, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley, spoke about reconciliation, referring to her pectoral cross fashioned from nails from the rubble of the blitzed Coventry Cathedral. She desired to play her part in in search of “peace and justice”, she said, and hoped that members would, too. “Let us stand together in hope.”
Luke Appleton (Exeter) prefaced his speech by saying that he was “every bit as wretched and sinful as everyone else on this room. All of us are only justified by the blood of Christ.” He characterised the talk at the center of the LLF process as a “conflict between biblical Christianity and worldly compromise”. The danger was that pursuing the present course would, he argued, break the Elizabethan religious settlement, since it was not possible for the entire Church to walk together on this issue.
The Revd Joy Mawdesley (Oxford) moved her amendment, to alter “welcoming” within the motion to “noting” Bishop Snow’s paper. She did welcome, nevertheless, the brand new emphasis on bridge-building and reconciliation, and the honesty concerning the difficulties of implementation. The ten commitments were still in draft form and would must be negotiated, she said. “We don’t know what we’re welcoming.”
Bishop Snow resisted the amendment.
The Revd Fraser Oates (Worcester) said that the Church was caught in a “miserable and exhausting cycle”, becoming entrenched in division without addressing the underlying reasons for disagreement. The Synod had hit a brick wall, legally and procedurally. If the duty was reconciliation, then there needed to be more wrestling concerning the real theological depths of disagreement. “I’m struggling to see my place here any more,” he said, and so would support the amendment.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesLuke Appleton (Exeter)
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) welcomed the change in tone, before recalling how, in St Mark’s Gospel, Jesus became indignant at religious leaders or his disciples trying to forestall people from coming to God. “Would Jesus be indignant today I ponder?” LGBT people were “heartsick” at ongoing rejection by the Church, she said.
The amendment was carried.
Ed Shaw (Bristol) moved an amendment to acknowledge that “a number of the issues raised usually are not matters on which they will simply conform to disagree.” He said that it was necessary to be “honest concerning the present”, and to avoid deeply held differences’ being “smoothed over”. Not everyone in a “sexual minority” supported the introduction of the Prayers of Love and Faith. His amendment sought to be “honest concerning the depth of our current divisions”. Moves to stop paying into diocesan common funds, and to delay or seek alternative ordination, demonstrated how deeply held the divisions were, he said.
Bishop Snow thanked Mr Shaw, but resisted the amendment: enshrining it risked conceding that there have been no “latest and imaginative ways” of finding a option to move forward together.
Kenson Li (co-opted) urged the Synod to vote against the amendment, because it suggested that reconciliation was impossible. “We overcome not people, nor ideas: we overcome disagreement itself,” he said. Unity without difference was death, but reconciliation after a “dialectical process” was life.
The Revd Dr Mark Smith (Universities and TEIs) said that the amendment highlighted how hard the talk was and the way the Church even disagreed about what type of disagreement it was having. Without resolving this, “we are going to carry on talking past one another and hurting one another,” he said. The amendment simply stated a truth, that individuals on either side were motivated by non-negotiable convictions. The Bishops had presumed that the divide was inside the breadth of things that Christians could conform to disagree on, which might marginalise those that saw the split as over apostolic truth.
The Revd Steve Wilcox (York) referred to the parable of the wheat and the tares, suggesting that either side saw their position within the imagery of the wheat, and the opposite side because the weeds. Using one other horticultural metaphor, he said that it needs to be recognised that the “roots” of the 2 positions were very different, and that for the fruits of each to grow, structural change was needed.
The Revd Graham Kirk-Spriggs (Norwich) believed that those that disagreed with him were Christian, and that their position was legitimate, but there was a danger of “structural prejudice” if changes were made, which suggested that a bishop was only bishop to those with whom they agreed. Imagine, he said, if an “inclusively minded bishop” were to refuse to ordain someone on the grounds that they didn’t support equal marriage; bishops couldn’t be a figure each of unity and factionalism.
Prebendary Karl Freeman (Exeter) suggested that liberals had a bonus in that they may flex their positions in keeping with circumstance, whereas conservatives were certain to obey the certainties laid down within the Bible. Any solution would must be pragmatic, and must accommodate the flexibleness of liberality and the understanding of conservatism, he said.
Lucy Gorman (York) said that she had felt unwelcome within the C of E her entire life. But she selected to remain, because Christians were called to remain together and hold one another. It was time to maneuver forward on the idea of last 12 months’s votes, she said, and look to the long run without fear.
The amendment was lost in all Houses: Bishop 20-8, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 92-83, with two recorded abstentions; and Laity 98-86, with one recorded abstention.
The debate was adjourned on Monday evening. It resumed on Tuesday morning, with an amendment from Jane Patterson (Sheffield). This sought so as to add a line on “openness and transparency” to “rebuild trust”. While she held a conventional view on marriage, realism was needed to maneuver forward from the “who, what, where, when” questions on legal and theological advice, she said. Without “future-proofed, secure pastoral reassurance”, no resolution was in sight, she argued.
Bishop Snow welcomed the amendment.
Alan Dowen (Chester) said that true reconciliation required honesty. The can was not only being kicked down the road, he suggested, but speeding away “on the back of a lorry”. He couldn’t imagine two mutually exclusive things at the identical time; his theology needed to be aligned with science. “I feel reconciled with myself and I feel God is in all things, the science as much because the theology.” A house divided against itself would fall, he told the Synod.
The Revd Neil Patterson (Hereford) endorsed the amendment. Not enough transparency had been seen within the “labyrinthine” process over the past 12 months, he said. If the Church was going to stay united, it needed to be clear about what it was doing and the way. Part of LLF was about “coming out from hiddenness and hypocrisy”.
The amendment was carried.
The Revd Charlie Skrine (London) then moved his amendment, which said that the Church was stuck at a dead end, “condemned to proceed hurting one another”. He praised the Bishops’ moves to reset the talk; his amendment wouldn’t stop that taking place, but simply lock in structural provision for conservatives. He questioned those that had voted against Mr Shaw’s amendment: “If we’re going to get out of this dead end, in some unspecified time in the future I’m going to need to vote for something you wish, or you’ll have to vote for something I need.”
He acknowledged the accusation that conservatives were exploiting LLF to sow disunity, but said that this was unfaithful. “Show me that you just imagine in unity by being willing to explore changes of structures.” If like-minded people could gather in separate structures, conservatives would not be in the best way of liberals, but they may all remain inside the C of E.
Bishop Snow resisted the amendment, mostly owing to what it faraway from the motion about implementing the choices that the Synod had already taken. But he was sympathetic to Mr Skrine’s argument, and said that certainly one of his ten commitments pointed in the identical direction.
The Revd Gary Kennaugh (Chester) particularly valued the emphasis on “bridge-building” in Bishop Snow’s report. He agreed with others that this was too big a difficulty to conform to disagree, and the one option to bring unity was for structural provision that “honoured the consciences” of everyone.
The Revd Jody Stowell (London) was ambivalent concerning the report, against the amendment, but in favour of reconciliation. She argued that any provision must not be so structural and defined that it told mixed parishes like hers that they may not stay together. Any reform must not “draw a thick solid line through the center of parishes like mine”.
Sophie Clarke (London) asked what it really meant to “walk together”. Were tight votes and lack of trust indicative of any sense of unity, she asked. The Church, she argued, would remain “utterly divided”, no matter what happened within the Synod — but, she suggested, structural provision could “set us free”.
James Wilson (Manchester) said that “structural provision”, in practice, amounted to “schism in all but pension fund”. The division over women bishops was about ecclesiology, but current proposals by the C of E Evangelical Council amounted to a much deeper division, he argued. The amendment would export divisions within the chamber to PCCs across the country, which could be forced to determine which structure they wanted to affix.
The Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, supported the amendment, saying that exploring structural provision had almost unanimous support within the House of Bishops. People could accept what was on the table, with Prayers of Love and Faith as an opt-in; however the further the C of E moved along this path, the greater the necessity for a proper structural settlement. “Walking together only works when the parties agree on the speed and direction of travel. Otherwise, it’s a frog-march,” he said. If large numbers of conservatives were forced to depart it will provoke a recruitment crisis for the Church and sever relationships across the Anglican Communion, he argued.
Simon Friend (Exeter) said that the theological dispute was about whether traditional teaching on marriage was a “first-order issue”. He blamed the Augustinian interpretation of original sin, within the sense of a sexually transmitted guilt going back to Adam and Eve. This needs to be abandoned, he said. The original sin was not about sex, but eating of the tree of the knowledge of excellent and evil.
The amendment was defeated in all three Houses: Bishops 24-8, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 98-78, with eight recorded abstentions; Laity 100-81, with seven recorded abstentions.
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), invoked Standing Order 33, triggering a vote on whether to maneuver to next business. If this were carried, it will prevent the motion from returning in the identical form throughout the lifetime of this Synod. “This is just not intended as any form of partisan move,” she said. Her conversations with people on all sides of the talk suggested that there was nothing to be gained by proceeding to a final vote on the motion. If that happened, she would need to vote against, as she was “fundamentally uncomfortable”, she said, with signing a “blank cheque” regarding a set of commitments that had not been finalised. Everyone could be higher served by moving on, and returning to the LLF debate in July after more work had been done.
Responding, Bishop Snow said that he was open to hearing the view of the Synod on the motion. He thanked members for debate conducted in a positive tone, and praised the staff who had been working on LLF with him behind the scenes. He was still hoping to herald more bishops to co-lead the following stage of the method, which might concentrate on implementing the Synod’s decisions and exploring “what degree of communion is feasible for us”. The continuing presence within the chamber of enormous numbers of conservatives gave him hope that a way could possibly be found to maintain them within the C of E, he concluded. “You wouldn’t be here if you happen to didn’t imagine a point of communion was possible.”
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham) didn’t consider this an aggressive move to kick things into the long grass, but the chance was that it gave the impression to be a rejection of Bishop Snow’s direction of travel and his appendices. Dr Harrison was sympathetic to moving on, saying that a vote on the talk wouldn’t be helpful.
Debbie Buggs (London) said she could be sorry to not discuss Andrew Cornes’s amendment, especially because it touched on more theological matters, but thanked Mr Friend and Mr Li for tackling theology of their speeches, even when she didn’t agree with their conclusions. She opposed the motion in order that Mr Cornes could speak to his amendment.
The chair, Geoffrey Tattersall KC, accepted the procedural motion, which was voted on and carried by 322-69, with 20 recorded abstentions.
