THE General Synod, on Monday afternoon, voted by narrow majorities within the House of Clergy and the House of Laity in favour of a motion recommend by the lead bishop for Living in Love and Faith (LLF), the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow (News, 21 June).
The chair, Geoffrey Tattersall KC, began the session with a light-hearted update about his love for chocolate, holding up a packet of Maltesers which had been provided by an unnamed member. Members were told that Daniel Matovu (Oxford) had made some extent of order under standing orders arguing that the motion contradicted a previous decision of the Synod previously 12 months (News, 9 February 2023), but Mr Tattersall had ruled against this submission, allowing the controversy to proceed.
Bishop Snow introduced his documents and motion by asking everyone listening to “enjoyment of the fantastic thing about the Church”. “We spend numerous time at Synod telling ourselves how ugly we’re as a Church, how we get it unsuitable,” he said. “But what if we dared to consider that God looks on us and smiles?”
God invited everyone to “enjoyment of each other”, and he urged members to maneuver beyond numbers and money to model as a substitute the friendship across disagreement displayed by the members of the working groups during their weekend away in Leicester (News, 8 May). His paper suggested that common life within the Church ought to be based not on organisational structure, however the communion of the three Persons of the Trinity. “We are united in our hope of someday being sat on the table of heaven, and that might be a stupendous sight.”
What should the Church do, subsequently, about its “temporary and fleeting divisions” — he had heard and understood that some people thought that they may not remain in communion with others, having different views on marriage and sexual ethics. These people still had a spot within the Church of England, including those within the Alliance network (News, 5 July), Bishop Snow said.
Others could stay in communion only so long as the Synod didn’t enshrine injustice in church structures, he said. These people, too, had been heard and revered, and had a spot within the Church, including those within the Together network.
“We all want one of the best for the Church, and yet we profoundly disagree. So what now?” Maybe those on each side might need to, for some time, accept “second best”. Maybe there are different degrees of communion, and no person is forced to sit down at the identical table.
“None of us get what we would like, and all of us must trust one another,” Bishop Snow said. The Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) didn’t imply a change of doctrine, or teach that sex outside of marriage was right: they were simply a suggestion of welcome. They wouldn’t start until pastoral guidance for his or her use was in place, and a structure of provision for many who would and wouldn’t use the prayers: delegated episcopal ministry. Not all the main points of what this might mean had been worked out.
The final proposal could be dropped at the Synod next 12 months. “Nothing changes this autumn; what we ask today is, are you content for us to proceed working on these details?” Nobody was being asked to sign a blank cheque, Bishop Snow insisted.
“We usually are not attempting to pretend any of this is ideal,” he continued, acknowledging that many were offended concerning the process, or concerned by an absence of transparency. He knew that some had been in tears on the Synod, feeling that they were being forced out of the Church. “But I genuinely don’t consider that is the case,” he said.
Everyone must accept second best, knowing that this side of heaven the Church can never be perfect.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of Canterbury said that the controversy was about salvation. The Church was called to the cure of souls across England, he said, as he recounted his own conversion 49 years ago. “As with me, then, this discussion now could be about people following Christ.” That was one reason of many who he couldn’t imagine the C of E without the Alliance network. He owed that tradition his own salvation, and that they need to flourish within the Church was “indispensable to the gospel”, he argued.
Similarly, he couldn’t imagine the C of E without the members of the Together network. “The reality of the Church as we live it’s all the time messy,” he said, nevertheless it should be all the time reconciling together and reaching out to those beyond its partitions. “That the Church flourishes as one is indispensable to the gospel, and to the Anglican Communion.” The Church was not yet near a final decision, but engaged in detailed planning, so that each one could flourish, and salvation be proclaimed clearly to the nation, he concluded.
The Revd Stuart Cradduck (Lincoln) said that he could be supporting the motion, despite his concerns that it amounted to procrastination. Decisions had been made at successive meetings, he said, suggesting that it was time for them to be put into motion. He had been subject to a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) for blessing a same-sex couple after their marriage, he said, and been called an apostate. It was time to maneuver on “positively, and by the guidance of the Spirit”.
The Revd Will Harwood (Truro) said that the Synod looked as if it would have gotten lost in “chronic and exhausting disagreement” because it navigated the LLF process, which, he said, threatened to fracture the Church. He suggested that the Bishops were using their power to push the controversy in whichever direction they wished, overriding the desire of the democratically elected Houses of Clergy and Laity. Fair process was not being followed on stand-alone services, he said, leaving clergy who use them without legal protection. The motion lacked clarity and offered no assurances to either side of the argument. “To me, this motion feels rushed and unwise.”
Helen Lamb (Oxford) said that the “destination has been made clear. The bus is travelling, the route stops are mapped out . . . and, right away, it appears like a few of us are being run over by that bus.” Speaking to those in favour of changes, she said that those, like her, who opposed them were sincere of their disagreement. “We usually are not obstructing or delaying or playing games: we’re in search of to obey God above all,” she said. “I’m pleading with the Bishops to work with us.”
The Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, said that he had been warmly in favour of the PLF, but had concerns now concerning the motion before them. He was apprehensive that the introduction of stand-alone services would undermine previous commitments by the House of Bishops that the PLF wouldn’t contradict holy matrimony. Legal advice given to the Bishops stated that the stand-alone services must not resemble marriage services, but many now apprehensive that they did, and would subsequently be indicative of a change of doctrine. Going back to the February 2023 approach of commending could be “a gloss that I just don’t think will do”. Moving safely forward and together would want a return to canonical authorisation through the Synod, he warned. He knew that there was “colossal pressure” to get the PLF done, but cutting corners could be a mistake. Without more doctrinal work, the motion was not “oven-ready, and can generate more problems than it solved”.
The Revd Aneal Appadoo (UKME co-opted), in a maiden speech, said that he fairly enjoyed the method involved in synodical discussions, because it provided safety. “It shows that we are able to’t just make things up as we like,” he said. The lack of trust, at the very least when it got here to LLF, was because processes had not been followed, he suggested. He referred to earlier reassurances that the doctrine was not being modified, but said that there had been “mission creep”, because the Bishops now admitted that they’d received legal advice to the effect that stand-alone services of blessing would amount to a change in doctrine. Had the Synod been deliberately misled, he wondered. He hoped it was not the case, but he, for one, “felt tricked”.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, supported the motion. “In spite of its many flaws, the Church stays the Body of Christ,” she said. Since the Reformation, the C of E had all the time made room for diversity, tolerating disagreement on many issues without breaking communion. She supported provision for either side of the Church, but opposed the concept of a “third space”, which, she said, amounted to “dividing up the household of religion”. At times, calls for more theology were a “displacement activity”, she warned, on condition that, even with more theology people, would still disagree. Theology was not only words, but deeds.
The Revd Dr Brenda Wallace (Chelmsford) reminded the Synod that the controversy was about “real people” who had been disadvantaged or hurt by the Church. She was looking forward to conducting the wedding of her previously divorced daughter, but this was possible only due to the courage of a previous Synod in changing the foundations concerning the marriage of divorcees. She hoped that Synod would again make changes and show the “generosity to succeed in out with Christ’s loving arms”.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, then moved his amendment, which called for more funding from the Archbishops’ Council for the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) to finish the doctrinal research that they were being asked to deliver by February. Dr Innes said that the FAOC’s two interim theological advisers were as a consequence of get replaced by a full-time adviser within the autumn, but he hoped to retain the interim members on part-time contracts, which required more cash. There was also a priority that academics were increasingly less able to present their time freely to the Church as a part of their work, as hard-pressed university departments were less willing to release theologians pro bono. He also asked for “realism” concerning the FAOC, which, he said, was not a magisterium that handed down the answers to difficult questions. FAOC was made up of 16 people, including six bishops. “We is not going to be pushing a specific line, but giving balanced theological reflection to different perspectives within the Church,” he said. But this should be properly resourced.
Bishop Snow said that he warmly welcomed the amendment, and thanked the FAOC and its advisers for the work they’d done for the PLF project. The debate showed how essential doctrinal questions were, and it was right that this work needed to be properly resourced.
The chair of the Finance Committee of the Archbishops’ Council, Carl Hughes, confirmed that the Council was satisfied that funds were available.
Julie Withers (Chester) supported the amendment, but said that the working groups needed more expert advice.
James Cary (Bath & Wells) hoped that the fruits of this theological work could be made available, in full, to members of the Synod, and never just delivered orally to the Bishops.
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Mandy Ford (Canterbury), said that theology was not nearly biblical interpretation. Anglican theology also was grounded within the study of science, and she or he pleaded with members to contemplate theology coming from other traditions.
Richard Denno (Liverpool) asked for reassurance that voices across the Anglican Communion could be incorporated into the theological work.
The amendment was carried on a show of hands.
The Revd Andrew Cornes (Chichester) then spoke to his amendment, which might remove the a part of the unique motion which called for the substitute of Issues in Human Sexuality. He said that everybody agreed that Issues should go, but that the Synod couldn’t agree its substitute by pastoral guidance as yet half-written. The Bishops’ Statement and Code of Practice weren’t even in draft form, he said. “This was asking for an excessive amount of trust; it might be unwise to present it.” He also said that those documents couldn’t replace Issues as they didn’t give enough weight to theology. “In a world so muddled about sex, it is important the Church has a message about sex which is obvious, distinctively Christian, pastoral, and freeing.” The current pastoral guidance, the Bishops’ statement, and the code of practice weren’t “careful Anglican theology”, and so weren’t able to interchange Issues. He suggested that the Revd Professor Oliver O’Donovan — “probably essentially the most respected moral and pastoral Anglican theologian on the planet” — be asked to provide a theological statement for the House of Bishops.
Bishop Snow said that he accepted that there was not enough detail in the present paperwork, but that it was mandatory to be clear that Issues was to get replaced. For this reason, he resisted the amendment.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesA member seen throughout the LLF debate on Monday afternoon
Alianore Smith (Southwark) said that the Synod had been promised several times that it might not be asked to vote on the PLF without the complete pastoral guidance in front of it. Yet it was now being asked to achieve this. She urged the Synod to vote for the amendment.
The Revd Mae Christie (Southwark) disagreed with Mr Cornes about whether Issues was a serious piece of theology, and quoted the document to suggest that it was conceived as a staging post, to get replaced over again work had been done. She referred to further passages about “the bisexual” and “homophiles” which, she said, seemed like endorsements of conversion therapy, and said that the document deserved to be put within the bin.
Canon John Bavington (Leeds) questioned whether the bishops’ were acting properly and fairly by requesting the Synod’s approval for an as yet unwritten document to interchange Issues.
The Revd Robert Thompson (London) said that Issues had been conceived as a teaching document, and it was unclear the way it got here for use as a disciplinary document. On process grounds, subsequently, Issues should go, since it was not meant to be utilized in the way in which that it was now. It also contained injunctions against homophobia, but this element was not being upheld, he suggested, mentioning continuing homophobia within the Church.
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle) thought that the Synod had already decided to abolish Issues. She urged members to trust the Bishops and dealing groups to bring the pastoral guidance back to them.
Dr Simon Eyre (Chichester), in favour of the amendment, said that it seemed inappropriate to bundle together several documents, a few of which were incomplete, to interchange Issues, as they were too disparate: despite the failings of Issues, it was a document that might be referenced, he suggested. More work was needed on its substitute, and this amendment gave time for this.
The Revd Alex Frost (Blackburn) resisted the amendment because, he said, it failed to understand the “limitless hours” spent within the LLF process considering these questions. The Bishops ought to be given the possibility to make it work, and reunite the Church.
Dr Rosalind Clarke (Lichfield), in favour of the amendment, urged caution about assigning authority to documents that had not yet been developed. The amendment prejudged the work of FAOC, working groups, and the House of Bishops, she said, and it was higher to attend for more clarity before making a choice.
Dr Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) said that he was initially unimpressed with the House of Bishops, but this modified when it conceded its own divisions more truthfully. He said that the refusal of some parts of the Synod to trust their bishops was “disgraceful”. Issues couldn’t proceed, and members should trust the Bishops to give you something higher, even when was not yet complete. Voting the amendment through could be an unacceptable obstruction of the LLF project.
The Revd Charlie Skrine (London) said that Issues was an “embarrassing” document, but that he supported the amendment on the grounds that it mustn’t get replaced until the relevant documents had been drafted. The query of discipline was a crucial one, and so it was mandatory to have clarity before agreeing to it.
Samuel Wilson (Chester) said that the people behind the LLF project “usually are not idiots, and wouldn’t propose something to us which doesn’t have the boldness of this place”. It was nerve-racking to say yes to a document that had not been seen, but he was confident that it might be something everyone could agree on.
Clare Williams (Norwich) said that the Synod couldn’t vote through a blank cheque for the Bishops, as it might obscure transparency and accountability. She supported the amendment.
After a counted vote by Houses, the amendment was lost: Bishops, 11-23 with five recorded abstentions; Clergy, 93-97 with two recorded abstentions; Laity 90-93 with three recorded abstentions.
Returning to the primary motion, Canon Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) recalled how an Anglican colleague had entered right into a civil partnership years ago, and had asked her to steer them in a service of blessing across the eucharist (after one partner had first been baptised). She said that she felt like a “pioneer minister” by offering a “fresh expression of church”, and urged the Synod to not lose sight of how the pastoral related to the missional.
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) said that those that opposed the motion did so out of theological conviction. If the motion was carried, trust within the Bishops would fall further, he suggested. In practice, the C of E would split, and proceed in “serious decline”. He referred to the instance of the Scottish Episcopal Church, suggesting that decline in attendance had been as a consequence of its introduction of same-sex marriage. He asked those that desired to vote for the motion to achieve this with “open eyes” to the results.
The Revd Graham Kirk-Spriggs (Norwich) said that the Synod had avoided an elephant within the room: “judgement”. Much of the conversation was driven by a theology of fear, that if the unsuitable decision was reached God would judge and disown the Church. “Doctrine doesn’t save us, only Jesus can.” He wanted conservatives to be a component of the Church, and urged them to not be afraid of God, or of praying with people like him. He had once been convinced that God hated him, but overcoming this had brought him into fullness of life.
The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond (Norwich) said that, in his experience, things that went unsuitable within the Church were due to not conspiracy but to incapacity. More work needed to be done, he said, but this was not anybody’s fault — it was that the tasks were complex, and needed careful and lengthy consideration.
Sammi Tooze (York) said that the journey to the motion was “lengthy and dear”, nevertheless it would help the Church to maneuver forward. She praised the change in language from “experiment” to “discernment”. Stand-alone services wouldn’t look very different from the PLF already commended and in use. They wouldn’t necessarily seem like weddings, she said, only services to “bless the products of a loving, faithful relationship”. This was not a doctrinal query, but a pastoral one, enabling a full welcome to LGBTQ people.
The Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham, the Rt Revd Paul Williams, said that essentially the most transparent thing could be to acknowledge that the Synod was not yet able to move forward “as one Church”. He urged members to vote against the motion and invite the Bishops to “re-examine”, and never to proceed in a way which may split the Church.
Zoe Ham (Carlisle) said that the Synod was divided not only on the principle of same-sex marriage, but in addition what form of disagreement this was. She argued that the query was not something Christians could “conform to disagree” on, but said that those that agreed with that ought to treat her as a “weaker sister” and never exercise their freedom in a way that wounded her conscience. Ask the Bishops to come back back with something which may protect her conscience, she urged. “You care concerning the cure of souls, so please care concerning the cure of mine.” She longed for an area within the Church through which the present doctrine might be upheld and proudly defended, not seen as something embarrassing.
The Revd Neil Patterson (Hereford) sought to remind the Synod of how voting against the motion could be heard: telling Christians in committed same-sex marriages that “their faith is fake, and that they’re liars before God”.
Canon Vaughan Roberts (Oxford) warned that carrying the motion would “catapult” the C of E towards a schism along the lines of the split between the Episcopal Church within the United States and the Anglican Church in North America. He also spoke of the Orthodox Ordinands group, who, he said, were “deeply concerned” whether there could be a spot for them within the Church should the motion be carried. Conservatives were prepared to barter for a settlement, but the most recent proposals weren’t a spot to begin from. “This is removed from oven-ready,” he warned. The Church must not rush into this too quickly, because the results might be massive.
The Archdeacon of Bolton and Salford, the Ven. Rachel Mann (Manchester), said that the motion was not a “comforting fiction but an invite right into a deeper reality”. It was not perfect, and wouldn’t satisfy everyone, however the Synod should still carry it because it might move the controversy forward, she said. Neither the liberals nor the conservatives would get what they really wanted, whether it was gay marriage in church or a separate province.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, moves the LLF motion
“Doctrine matters: it really matters,” Daniel Matovu (Oxford) said. It was unitary: “Jesus didn’t say ‘I’m the truths, the ways, and the lives.’” He reiterated calls for the legal advice received by the bishops to be published in full, before his final point was cut off as he had gone over the deadline for speeches.
Abigail Ogier (Manchester) said that the doctrine of marriage also stated that marriage was lifelong, but she was an example of many Anglicans who had divorced and married again in church. She supported the present motion. Good people willing to coach for ministry were being lost because they were, or desired to be, married to their same-sex partners. “The Holy Spirit could easily convict whichever half of the Church was unsuitable of the error of their ways, but they’ve not.” This meant that God wanted the Church to work through its differences.
Dr Laura Oliver (Blackburn) said that she was convinced that she was right in her belief that same-sex relationships mustn’t be pursued, which, for her, meant living a celibate life. She recognised, nonetheless, that those that disagreed were equally as convinced. She said that the voices of LGBT individuals who lived celibate lives were too often ignored, and that there was not an area for her within the proposals. By attempting to keep everyone together, the Bishops were actually pushing them apart, she suggested, and called on members to reject the motion.
The Revd Jody Stowell (London) recalled her devastation when the women- bishops laws had failed in November 2012, and she or he had felt that the Church didn’t recognise her equal humanity. That was what was being debated again today, she argued. Could the Church get to a spot where there was no “them”, only “us”? “The tiny crumb being offered today is the bare minimum, and has been voted on already.” She urged the Bishops to not delay any longer.
The Archbishop of York said that it had felt like “18 months of trench warfare”, and hoped that it was now time to place down the rifles and play a game of football in no man’s land. He supported the motion, which, he said, already amounted to a compromise, which “wasn’t what anyone wanted”. Regarding the PLF, nobody could be forced to do anything against their conscience, he said, and further work could be done on other facets. He appealed to members of the Alliance, saying that their help was needed to make sure that provision might be worked out that will enable the Church to remain together.
A motion for the closure was then put to the Synod, and was carried by 226 votes to 175 with eight recorded abstentions.
Responding to the controversy, Bishop Snow praised the tone of the speakers and the kindness shown to those on the opposite side. He desired to reassure members that the papers produced by the FAOC could be published soon, as would future theological study. The documents produced to interchange Issues could be seen and approved by the Synod in February, he said. Nobody was being asked to “sign a blank cheque”.
He particularly thanked Mr Patterson, a number one figure among the many pro-LGBTQ caucus on the Synod, who was as a consequence of stand down soon, and Dr Oliver. “I would like to reiterate once more, there may be a spot for you within the Church of England,” he told her.
“I hear clearly that we haven’t got it right,” Bishop Snow told other conservatives, but insisted that the papers were a piece in progress, and that the bishops were learning as they went. “Whatever your consciences let you know, this shouldn’t be the tip of the journey.”
After a counted vote by Houses, the motion, as amended, was passed: Bishops, 22-12, with five recorded abstentions; Clergy, 99-88, with two recorded abstentions; Laity, 95-91, with two recorded abstentions.
That this Synod:
(a) support the general proposal and timetable set out in GS 2358;
(b) request that the House of Bishops, with the recommendation of the LLF working groups:
i. revise the Pastoral Guidance to remove restrictions on the usage of PLF in “standalone” services alongside the introduction of an arrangement to register for Pastoral Reassurance;
ii. establish the premise for the availability of Pastoral Reassurance through a House of Bishops’ Statement and Code of Practice which provides for the delegation of some specific and defined episcopal ministry, and which is overseen by an Independent Review Panel;
iii. report back to this Synod at its February 2025 group of sessions on the further theological work carried out under the auspices of the Faith and Order Commission around the character of doctrine, particularly because it pertains to the doctrine of marriage and the query of clergy in same-sex civil marriages, this work to be appropriately budgeted and resourced by the Archbishops’ Council when it comes to theological advice, travel and meeting costs in an effort to increase the likelihood of meeting the timescales as set out in GS 2358.
(c) Agree that taken together the Pastoral Guidance, the Bishop’s Statement and Code of Practice for pastoral provision will replace Issues in Human Sexuality.
(d) Agree for the arrangements for Pastoral Reassurance to be often monitored over a period of at the very least three years before being formally reviewed by General Synod.
