THE General Synod voted on the Tuesday to interchange the 1991 document Issues in Human Sexuality with the 2015 Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (GPCC) in the course of the discernment process for ordination.
A non-public member’s motion from the Revd Mae Christie (Southwark) was introduced by Paul Waddell (Southwark) on her behalf. Two years ago, the Synod, he said, had voted to interchange Issues with latest pastoral guidance from the House of Bishops — and yet it still remained in place.
Given that the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process was still continuing, it made sense to repair this “little bit” now. In a vocations crisis, he said, the continued use of Issues made the Church look “a bit silly and sometimes cruel”. What the motion proposed a “surgical removal” of the document, without getting bogged down in other debates.
While the pastoral guidance was being waited for, Issues may very well be replaced with the GPCC, he suggested. This was shaped by the Ordinal, grounded in canon law, and referred to a separate Bishops’ statement on a standard view of marriage.
It was not only the language of Issues that was outdated — including repeated use of “homophile” — but in addition its teaching. It stated that bisexuals would “inevitably” be unfaithful, for instance. Ordinands were being asked to comply with statements that the Church, through its Synod, not agreed with or taught. “We’re asking conservatives to enroll to things they don’t consider, let alone liberals,” he said.
This was a chance to make a “small but significant” change — “bin off Issues in Human Sexuality” and end this harm, he concluded.
Matthew Edwards (Lichfield) said that the impact of Issues had “fallen heavily” on LGBTQ+ people. It had not passed through a full synodical approval process, nor had it been conceived as an enduring document, but, fairly, as a staging post, he said. Its language “undermines” pastoral care, and must be removed now. “When someone cannot speak truthfully about who they’re, . . . that’s not discernment, that’s not spiritual formation, that’s not the Church being at its best.”
The Revd Lucy Davis, Dean of Women’s Ministry in St Albans diocese, reported that ladies of all traditions within the diocese who were exploring vocations were “bemused” when asked to take home and browse Issues. “Interestingly, they at all times remember to return it,” she joked. “Yellowing because it is, Issues isn’t certainly one of the historic formularies of the Church of England; nor has it aged well.” She knew of vocations that had fallen away due to Issues, before the person even got to a gathering with the Diocesan Director of Ordinands. “Issues must go, and it must go now.”
Canon Vaughan Roberts (Oxford) thanked Mr Waddell for his introduction, saying that he had come to the controversy with some trepidation, but was grateful for the tone by which it was being conducted. “I don’t like Issues,” he said. As someone who “experienced exclusively same-sex attraction”, he “didn’t feel recognised” by the document, he said. It couldn’t, nevertheless, be removed without something to interchange it; due to this fact, he was grateful for a forthcoming amendment to interchange it with the GPCC on an interim basis, before the complete pastoral guidance was introduced.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesCanon Vaughan Roberts (Oxford)
Dr Helen King (Oxford) had been a Synod member in 1991. She concurred that it was an announcement from the House of Bishops never intended to be utilized in the discernment process. Its “empire” had even spread beyond the clergy to put people now, she said. She knew of dioceses where Issues was used to limit lay ministry, by, for instance, banning married gay people from leading Bible studies. She also supported the forthcoming amendment. These were about calling, care, integrity, and fidelity, while calling the clergy to the “highest standards of non-public conduct”. She urged the Synod to unite as one Church and “end the unintended reign of Issues”.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) moved an amendment that Issues get replaced, on an interim basis, with the GPCC, and asking for work to be accomplished on pastoral guidance, a code of practice, and a House of Bishops statement, as agreed last 12 months (News, 12 July 2024). The GPCC was not law, she said, but pointed to the relevant canons, and, though intended for clergy fairly than those within the discernment process, it seemed “common sense” that anyone in search of to turn out to be a priest should give you the option to accede to them. “We is perhaps on the cusp of a rare moment of consensus on an LLF debate,” Ms Bridgman said.
Mr Waddell was “delighted” to just accept the amendment.
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) said that the “rare” agreement in the controversy on an LLF-related issue was moving. He called for the Synod to “seize the moment” and move to a vote.
The Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Mark Tanner, who co-wrote the amendment with Ms Bridgman, thanked Ms Christie for her work and agreed that Issues needed to go. It was “utterly logical and consistent” for bishops to require ordinands and discernment candidates to live in step with GPCC, he said, which were up up to now and consistent with the Church’s teaching and practice.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), said that the continuing work on the brand new pastoral guidance and code of practice wouldn’t undermine the proposed endorsement of the GPCC, though they’d be structured in another way. The debate showed that the Church was learning how you can “play nicely” on contentious issues, he suggested.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) said that, as a university principal, he worked with students who were “on the best way” to meeting the GPCC guidelines, but may not be there yet. “There shall be times when the ordinands step outside the rules, and that’s not robotically a case of ‘Game over, off you go.’” Trinity College, Bristol, was not an entire “free-for-all”, but had grace for college students to grow towards meeting the GPCC standards.
The amendment was carried.
The Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury) praised the tenor of the controversy: bridges were being built between different factions. He also wanted Issues gone, but couldn’t have voted for this without the amendment. “We need a deep, pastorally sensitive, theologically wealthy alternative.”
Debbie Buggs (London) was the one speaker against the motion. The Synod had been promised that proposals on pastoral guidance, the event of stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples, and provision for opponents of those would all be presented together. She understood that a package had been developed by the LLF working groups, and that it included a measure of “transferred episcopal authority”.
Making a change on one aspect of this triumvirate without bringing forward proposals on the others was not helpful, she suggested. While the wording of Issues was unhelpful, she granted, the motion amounted to a “sticking plaster” fairly than a “surgical removal”.
Mr Waddell said that Canon Roberts’s speech would stick with him, and that this debate should set a latest tone for LLF debates next 12 months.
The motion as amended was carried on a show of hands, almost unanimously. It read:
That this Synod request that the House of Bishops remove any requirements referring to Issues in Human Sexuality from the Vocations (Shared Discernment) Process, and replace it with an interim requirement of living consistently with the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (GPCC) in the course of the period of discernment and training, and complete work on the package of the Pastoral Guidelines, Code of Practice, and Bishops’ Statement, as agreed at General Synod in July 2024.
