THE next steps in Living in Love and Faith (LLF) require “serious attention to problems with power, trust, honesty, and transparency”, the lead bishop on LLF, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, has said.
In a paper for next month’s meeting of the General Synod, Bishop Snow emphasised the importance of “humility” in the method, and apologised for “those elements of the method which have caused hurt to people across the spectrum of views on LLF”.
He pledged to be as “open as possible” with the Synod, and expressed hope that “we are able to all comply with resign all attempts to subvert the method or use our power to override agreed motions of Synod.”
It was announced this month that specific proposals were unlikely to be delivered to the Synod for a vote July, as originally planned (News, 24 January). Bishop Snow confirmed that the hold-up was as a result of the House of Bishops’ not having yet decided whether priests might be permitted to enter into same-sex marriages.
At a press conference on Thursday of last week, Bishop Snow said that he remained “confident” that a choice on this might be made “before too long”.
“I’m personally upset by the further delay; it’s not what I’d have wanted,” he said, but the method had continually thrown up “recent theological questions”.
He acknowledged the depth of disagreement on the problem, but said that “the more we return into historical sources, the more we return to reread the Bible, the more we discuss it together, the more we’re in a position to come to clarity.”
Clarity wouldn’t, he said, “necessarily bring agreement”, but he hoped and prayed that it might allow for a “clear decision which holds people throughout the Church”.
The introduction of a type of delegated episcopal ministry, together with stand-alone services of blessing, were each approved, in outline, last July, but haven’t yet turn out to be a reality (News, 12 July 2024).
Among the Synod papers released last week is an summary of how delegated episcopal ministry could work in practice: a “Regional College of Bishops” comprising all of the bishops in an area would co-ordinate delegated ministry for churches that requested it. A congregation would give you the option to ask to receive episcopal ministry (similar to confirmations) from a bishop within the region whose stance on LLF they agreed with, but can be expected still to interact with their diocesan bodies on other elements of church life.
Unlike the system of provincial episcopal visitors for parishes requesting their ministry due to objections to women bishops, no bishop can be employed specifically to offer delegated oversight, however the regional college of bishops can be committed to reflecting “the range of traditions”.
A paper from the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) suggests that the concept of “provisionality” is perhaps useful in moving the LLF process out of its current impasse.
With reference to proposed changes to the structure of the Church for the sake of those that oppose the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples, “provisionality means putting arrangements in place which are modest, scale-up-able, and reversible (though also sufficiently secure for confidence)”, the paper says.
The FAOC’s paper recognises the difficulties of finding an answer that is suitable to all sides, in addition to consistent with competing interpretations of what it means to be a united Church, but suggests: “A bearable ecclesiological anomaly could also be a price value paying for attempting to preserve the very best possible degree of communion for as many as possible for so long as possible.”
In an introduction for Synod members, the chairman of the FAOC, the Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, writes that “the current disagreement shouldn’t be only about theology, but additionally in regards to the variety of disagreement the Church is having about theology.”
The advice of provisionality in any settlement is couched as a method to move forward without having to agree in regards to the nature of the disagreement. Viewed in this manner, the availability of a type of delegated episcopal ministry “would aim to offer those that are convinced that that is a difficulty pertaining to apostolic of ecclesial communion enough distance for the sake of their conscience and distinctive witness, while not relinquishing other signs and structures of ecclesial communion”, the paper says.
Along with the paper on “ecclesiology, unity and differentiation”, two other documents prepared by the FAOC have been published.
A mirrored image on “episcopacy and conscience” considers the interplay of every bishop’s individual conscience with a “collegiate conscience” that, the paper suggests, is in a position to accommodate internal disagreement.
“No individual bishop’s conscience is . . . simply personal, as is perhaps the case for a person making a choice with limited intuitional impact. The representative nature of the episcopal calling requires a bishop to hold the consciences and convictions for all those for whom that bishop has oversight,” the paper says.
The third document “examines the theological dimensions of holy matrimony, civil marriage, and same-sex marriage throughout the context of Christian tradition, law, and teaching”.
In his introduction, Dr Innes says that the FAOC “expresses sceptism that a transparent distinction between holy matrimony and civil marriage can withstand scrutiny” — a distinction that had been a part of the rationale suggested, at the beginning of the LLF process within the Synod, for allowing priests to enter same-sex civil marriages.
An executive summary of the paper characterises its purpose as to supply a “nuanced framework for dialogue and winsome engagement” on the character of marriage.
