THE nine-year project Living in Love and Faith (LLF) got here to an end after a protracted and impassioned debate on the Thursday, wherein members aired their disappointment and frustration with what had and had not been achieved with regard to provision for LGBTQ+ people within the Church.
Before the talk began, the chair, the Archdeacon of Totnes, the Ven. Douglas Dettmer (Exeter), led tributes to the late Geoffrey Tattersall, who had chaired previous LLF debates. Archdeacon Dettmer urged members to decide on their words rigorously as they spoke on what remained a sensitive subject, reminding them many were listening beyond the ground of the chamber.
After silence and prayer, the Archbishop of York opened the talk. “This has not been a simple speech to write down. This isn’t where I need us to be, nor where I hoped we could be three years ago,” he said. He knew that many members felt offended or dissatisfied, on either side of the talk. The Bishops had taken responsibility for causing a few of this, and wished to make an apology, Archbishop Cottrell said. “Knowing how divided we’re, we haven’t been capable of find further ways forward that honour the consciences of those that arrive at different conclusions.”
Despite the deep divisions exposed by the LLF debate, the Church continued to welcome all people no matter their gender, ethnicity, sexuality, or the rest, Archbishop Cottrell said. The disagreement was over how that welcome was expressed, which, he appreciated, was particularly hard for LGBTQ people.
“There have been failures of process which have caused real pain on all sides of this chamber.” LLF mustn’t have been clouded in ambiguity or focused on striking “deals”, he admitted. The Bishops had relearned the importance of using legal and theological resources for synodical discussions. And so, despite the pain and failure, Archbishop Cottrell said that the Church was now higher placed to grasp each other and do higher on the continuing conversations through the brand new working group. Hence, the House of Bishops had agreed, almost unanimously, the statement published in January. The Bishops did imagine it was time to attract LLF to a detailed, and move the work forward in a “different way”.
Archbishop Cottrell said that he would, due to this fact, not vote for any of the amendments, although several of them had necessary things to say. The original motion “balances the disagreements we have now”, while offering a way forward. He was braced for much criticism of the House of Bishops in the talk that may inevitably unfold, but he also dared to imagine that there may be good ideas for progress emerging from the Synod floor and for locating consensus (as had happened with the substitute of Issues in Human Sexuality last 12 months).
“There is hurt on all sides, however the Bible tells us: when one among us is hurting, all of us hurt. Let us proceed to succeed in out to at least one one other and pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us in all truth,” he concluded. He hailed the incontrovertible fact that the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) were now available for same-sex couples, but he recognised that no more developments may very well be made beyond that. LLF must end, to create the space for answering the questions that remained.
The Revd Claire Robson (Newcastle) had wept when she read the apology to LGBTQ people in February 2023, but said that it had not actually modified anything. The cost of living inside the “strictures” of Issues was incalculable, she said. Hopes had been dashed. She doubted that she would ever be permitted to marry her partner, who was aged 88, given this further delay. She could be standing down from the Synod soon, but she urged members to vote in favour of the motion to “encourage the Bishops to make real their apology, and to make hope for the LGBTQ community”.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesBusola Sodeinde (London)
The Revd Jody Stowell (London) spoke as a parent of a toddler of the LGBTQI+ community. When they’d come out to her, they’d had difficult conversations about whether “God loved them of their embodied reality.” She said that, given caveats “imposed by a fearful and anxious institution”, it was not clear to her. Some elements of the motion were “less bad”, she said, and it was the “least worst option”.
Busola Sodeinde (London) remained orthodox and faithful to scripture, she said, emphasising that either side of the talk were hurting, “not only those of a more liberal persuasion”. Those who believed that they were searching for to stay faithful to God’s word, she said, had not been adequately consulted in the course of the LLF process.
The Bishop of Birmingham, Dr Michael Volland, supported the motion, but urged the Synod to withstand the amendments. The debate had caused “distress and pain”, and the Synod was “deeply divided on this”. If the motion was amended in a single direction or one other, there was a risk that the ultimate motion would turn into unacceptable to a major proportion of the Synod.
Anna de Castro (Sheffield) thanked everyone involved in the numerous stages of the LLF process, while acknowledging that there have been many “heavy hearts” within the chamber. Some felt that they were being only tolerated within the lifetime of the Church, she warned. She praised the presentation on the Tuesday, wherein, she said, bishops had been more honest about where they agreed and disagreed.
“None of us are on a typical mind on the overwhelming majority of the substantive matters of the LLF project,” she said. This was a hill that bishops on either side were willing to die on, she observed. If even the House of Bishops couldn’t find consensus, they might not be a force for unity for the Church. The Bishops may very well be this only in the event that they had a “robust provision” in place.
The Archdeacon of Bolton and Salford, the Ven. Dr Rachel Mann (Manchester), said that she would probably vote cautiously for the motion, despite her “heart being bruised”. She was “embarrassed” that almost ten years of labor had produced such a skinny motion. She had attended private prayers of blessing for same-sex couples which were rather more inclusive than the PLF formally commended, in spite of everything.
Dr Mann was bored with the Church’s failings and suspected that the House of Bishops ultimately wanted people like her to feel sorry for them. But there was still time for the Church to turn into a greater place for LGBTQ people. “Woe to us if in ten years we’re still talking and arguing,” she warned.
The Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk-Bell (Southwark) spoke to his amendment, which might replace the apology clause of the motion with one directed solely towards LGBTQ people. He said that the Synod had “broken his heart” with such a skinny offering. The 2023 apology now rang utterly hole, he said, and he spoke angrily of the “facetious charade” that was the LLF debates. “We are once more the suitable sacrifice — the thing that is just too difficult to do anything about.”
Why were pro-LGBT bishops not brave enough to talk publicly of their support? How could or not it’s right that there was just one publicly out LGBTQ bishop? “What type of Church is that this? What have we created?” This was not only the Bishops’ fault, he said, however the responsibility of everyone on the Synod. He condemned the “failure of nerve” on the a part of the bishops, who now offered little greater than “thin gruel”.
Yet, he would vote for this since it was the one way forward. His amendment sought to “tell the reality”: that the C of E remained unwilling to affirm faithful, committed, beautiful, and godly queer lives. “We queer people have been brutalised through this campaign of intimidation. We have been made bargaining chips. We have been told time and time again that we’re simply not price it.” Having to attend was breaking LGBTQ people into “tiny pieces”. He apologised to LGBTQ people seeing that the Church couldn’t have fun them because it should. “But we are going to, and we are going to soon.”
Archbishop Cottrell said that he loved and revered Dr Bączyk-Bell. He wouldn’t resist the amendment, but he wouldn’t vote for it or any others. He believed that the unamended motion was the easiest way forward for those on either side of the talk. If they wished there to be progress, that might occur; in the event that they opposed progress, there was still “clarity on the way in which forward”.
The Revd Kathryn Campion-Spall (Bristol) said that the apologies that she had heard diminished the worth of them, and that, until the Synod began doing something in a different way, Dr Bączyk-Bell’s amendment was the “best we will do”.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Claire Robson (Newcastle)
The Revd Professor Morwenna Ludlow (Exeter) said that the language that had been used in the course of the LLF process was damaging and created shame. She reflected on the Gospel account of the girl who touched the hem of Jesus’s cloak.
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) said that the Synod should face “sobering realities”. In the Gospel, Jesus was fully inclusive, but marriage was between a person and a girl.
Dr Simon Clift (Winchester) said that he had joined the Synod in “high hopes”, but had since felt “dismayed and dissatisfied”. Those who held to historical teachings also felt the pain, and all groups needed to be recognised. Therefore, he rejected the amendment.
The amendment was lost in all three Houses: Bishops 22-6, with nine recorded abstentions; Clergy 90-80, with five recorded abstentions; and Laity, 94-88 with seven recorded abstentions.
The Revd Dr Christopher Landau (Lichfield) moved his amendment to acknowledge that LGBTQ people had a variety of theological views which ought to be reflected in chaplaincy provision. As a recent arrival, he had been shocked at how factionalised the Synod had turn into. These groups could perpetuate “mutual suspicion and mistrust: are you with us, or them?” He recalled his experiences organising the primary LGBTQ chaplaincy in Oxford diocese, which had originally been intended to incorporate a celibate conservative chaplain for “orthodox” LGBT Christians. Over time, nonetheless, this had fallen away, and so the chaplaincy had not won any credibility amongst the massive conservative churches within the diocese to which it had been intended to minister.
“There are competing visions for a way individuals who experience same-sex attraction live out the decision of Christ,” he said. Creating chaplaincies that supported just one perspective would entrench factionalism slightly than signpost “the grace of other perspectives, seeing Christ in each other across those tribal divides”.
Archbishop Cottrell was open for a debate, but reiterated that he wouldn’t vote for the amendment. “I don’t just like the language of sides,” he said. He believed that the amendment was overly reductionist, considering the plethora of views within the chamber. The motion because it stood didn’t exclude the purpose that Dr Landau was making, and the range of LGBTQ people was also referred to within the Bishops’ statement.
Dr Laura Oliver (Blackburn) said that she was LGBTQ but believed that she was called to singleness and celibacy. She felt that her perspective had hardly been heard in the course of the LLF debates. Not all LGBTQ people longed for the PLF to be implemented in every church, she said. “My efforts to live a life as a treasured child of God, rejoicing in a lifetime of singleness as modelled by Jesus himself, have been undermined and diminished.”
James Wilson (Manchester) opposed the amendment, recalling that a member of the congregation on the church that he attended had killed herself years ago because she believed that she couldn’t reconcile her sexuality together with her faith. At an inclusive church like his, single and celibate LGBTQ people would receive an unconditional welcome, but the identical was not true in reverse at conservative churches, he said. Many conservative churches weren’t open about their views, but LGBTQ chaplaincies were helping. The amendment would “tie the hands of this ministry in an unhelpful way”.
The Revd James Menzies (Salisbury) backed the amendment. It was essential to acknowledge Christians who experienced “same-sex attraction” but were “courageous and prophetic” in selecting celibacy, saying with their lives that “Jesus is price it.” The motion unamended didn’t explicitly recognise the existence of same-sex-attracted Christians, and so he couldn’t vote for it.
Urging the Synod to reject the amendment, Matthew Edwards (Lichfield), said that he couldn’t pursue ministry due to his same-sex marriage. LGBTQIA+ clergy who remained celibate were a small minority. The Synod mustn’t justify the “profound harm” that the Church has caused, he said.
The amendment was defeated in a counted vote by Houses: Bishops 0-30, with seven recorded abstentions; Clergy 75-99, with two recorded abstentions; Laity 82-98, with six recorded abstentions.
Dr Ros Clarke (Lichfield) moved her amendment to call for the House of Bishops to apologise for not “paying due attention” to legal advice, which had caused it to lift hopes unfairly. She was grateful for those bishops who had admitted their mistakes and apologised, but said that the House of Bishops should “act because the spiritual leaders they’re, and model for us that confession, repentance, and equality so desperately needed if there’s any hope of forgiveness and reconciliation”.
In response, Archbishop Cottrell said that he stood by the apologies that he and other bishops had already made, but rejected her amendment as an “inaccurate caricature” of the situation. Legal advice had not been ignored, but there have been different legal ways forward, and the Bishops had had to determine, considering “tactical”, theological, and pastoral concerns. “It was not the case that the legal advice said one thing, and the House of Bishops said one other.” He was blissful for the talk to proceed, but wouldn’t vote for the amendment.
The Revd Neil Robbie (Lichfield) backed the amendment, arguing that good decisions needed good data. Too many speeches today and from the Bishops were using vague and unhelpful language, he said. “There is power in those words.”
Sam Wilson (Chester) said that the Synod was “hooked on apologies”. He didn’t know what Dr Clarke really wanted from her amendment. “This is just one other way of dividing us. We don’t want apologies: we wish motion.”
The Revd Jonathan MacNeaney (Southwark) spoke for those members who felt that they’d missed a likelihood for generational change to come back. Decisions mustn’t have been made, he said, with out a two-thirds majority.
The amendment was lost in all Houses: Bishops 0-36, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy, 60-105, with seven recorded abstentions; Laity 68-107, with six recorded abstentions.
The Revd Stuart Cradduck (Lincoln) moved his amendment to remove the clause bringing LLF to a proper end. Everyone knew that the work from LLF was not yet complete, he argued. To bring it formally to a detailed now “risks undoing what has taken a lot courage to start”. The recent working group deserved support, however it have to be clear that it was not a recent thing, but a continuation of LLF. If LLF was stopped, it could send a “harmful signal” that this season of listening and learning had ended. His church was one among few places where young LGBTQ people felt secure and had no must “pray themselves normal”.
“This is the fruit of the LLF journey, a Church becoming more like Christ,” he said. If the Church now moved beyond LLF, it could be interpreted as backing away from its earlier commitments. “This might be experienced not as progress, but as betrayal.”
Archbishop Cottrell had sympathy with the amendment, but wouldn’t vote for it. LLF had achieved many good things, he said, however the very phrase had turn into “freighted with divisive connotations”. The Bishops had decided that the easiest way for the conversation to proceed could be under a distinct label. This would “create space for other things to emerge in alternative ways”, he said.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) supported the amendment, as she, too, had a congregation “desperately dissatisfied” after the tip of LLF. LLF didn’t must be divisive and was not at odds with mission, but stopping it could be, she argued. “Keeping faith with LGBTQ people is growing our churches,” she said. “We will not be giving up and going away.”
Philip Baldwin (London) said that there was still a lack of know-how about same-sex blessings. He questioned why the LGBTQIA+ community should make sacrifices after they had so little. He urged the total acceptance of LGBTQI+ people across the Church.
Canon Philip Bromiley (Salisbury) suggested that “pausing” and “taking a breath” may very well be “the largest blessing”. He urged the Synod to hearken to the Bishops’ advice, to “let go and look forward”.
The amendment was lost in all Houses: Bishops 0-36, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy, 74-94 with eight recorded abstentions; Laity 78-101, with six recorded abstentions.
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) proposed her amendment so as to add a clause urging the introduction of stand-alone PLF services for all clergy in line with their conscience. She addressed the press gallery, asking: “Are you blissful with the Bishops discussing how they will punish gay clergy for falling in love?”, and emphasised that this discussion would fail an employment tribunal. “For many years, same-sex blessings have happened quietly, unofficially, behind closed doors. Now is the time to be visible, to come back out of the closet,” she said. If the withdrawal of licences and disciplinary hearings occurred, then these punishments ought to be made public, she said. She concluded with a quote by Gisèle Pelicot: “Let shame change sides.”
Archbishop Cottrell responded to the wording of Ms Brett’s amendment. He spoke on the FAOC paper on the event of doctrine, and said that PLF bespoke services weren’t commended or authorised. Therefore, he couldn’t vote for the amendment, because it was not about removing restrictions.
Dr Brendan Biggs (Bristol) backed the amendment, arguing that the Church should proceed with stand-alone services even when that meant changes in theology or practice. The Church recurrently modified its mind, on the whole lot from clerical celibacy to marriage after divorce. “This is what we do.” The Bible must not be read as a code of rules binding the Church today, but be interpreted rigorously, Dr Biggs said. He also cited examples within the New Testament wherein, he said, religious restrictions had been amended within the face of God’s goodness.
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Dr Mandy Ford (Deans), said that the LLF process had actually reduced the liberty of clergy to follow their consciences. Ms Brett’s amendment was a modest one to “help steer us through the years ahead”. She reflected on the importance of symbolism in the wedding service, and said that it was higher to permit a large diversity of interpretation of signs slightly than attempt to insert formalised rubrics into liturgy. She rejoiced in the range of interpretation of liturgy, and didn’t want it to be policed in a “spirit of scrupulousness, anxiety or fear”.
The Revd Dr Paul Chamberlain (Portsmouth) said that liturgy gave “expression” to the Church’s faith and that the Synod didn’t spend enough time on it. Why had the Church not spent nuanced time on liturgy on the PLF, he wondered, because it did on the Festival of God the Creator? Instead, the Bishops had simply commended the PLF with out a synodical process. Did these prayers unite the Church, he asked. “We need full proper process, whatever we do, going forwards.” The amendment was attempting to get round this due process and have to be resisted, he said.
Bob Chambers (Chichester) said that the Church needed to take great care about how the choices it took and the actions it pursued may very well be interpreted. “Our past comments have raised expectations in several quarters,” he said. The legal and theological advice had made clear that due process needed to be followed now, however the amendment “overtly” sought a course at odds with the Church’s doctrine of marriage, and have to be resisted.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk-Bell (Southwark) speaks to maneuver his amendment
The amendment was was lost in all Houses: Bishops 2-32, with 4 recorded abstentions; Clergy 76-95 with six recorded abstentions; Laity 83-102, with two recorded abstentions.
Debbie Buggs (London) introduced her amendment to delete the clause organising a recent working group on sexuality. She summarised her amendment as: “Stop, just stop!” Why would a distinct final result result from starting yet one more round of talks on this, she asked. The process had been traumatic for LGBTQ people; so the Church must not raise unrealistic hopes for change. LLF had dominated this Synod, she said, and other issues had turn into proxy debates for LLF. “Let’s not subject the following General Synod to the identical thing.” Trust within the Bishops needed to be rebuilt, through transparency, accountability, and self-awareness, Ms Buggs said. She welcomed the start of the House of Bishops’ culture and governance review, before a successor to LLF was began.
In response, Archbishop Cottrell said that he would resist the amendment, because he couldn’t let go of his “sisters and brothers who long for change”, even when he didn’t know whether this transformation could ever come. “We need the conversation to proceed,” he said, and hoped that there was a technique to move forward without tearing the Church apart. This amendment could be a “terrible mistake” each for conservatives and progressives, he argued.
The Revd Mike Smith (Chester) said that LLF needed to be stopped before it was reborn under a recent acronym. The Church had been on an “interminable escalator” for nearly 40 years, with no clear destination, and this had poisoned relationships between Anglicans. “We are called to talk the reality in love. Only that can reunite us,” he said. It was time to have fun actively the doctrine of marriage and put it up for sale in society, he said, as something that the Synod could reunite around.
The Bishop of Sherborne, the Rt Revd Karen Gorham (Southern Suffragans), said that the LLF process had been costly in every sense, especially for many who had contributed to it. It was tempting to think that the work could come to an end and the Church could close its eyes to the people around it, but Christians were still called to embrace the stranger and the marginalised. Ongoing working groups were necessary to “keep the work alive”, and this amendment must, due to this fact, be resisted, she said.
The Revd Lucy Davis (St Albans) said that only one among her three children was straight, and that none of them “did church, and I don’t blame them.” Her son had not come out to her until he was 17, because he feared that it could harm her profession within the Church. When her children married, she couldn’t bless them within the Church, she said. LLF must also have brought back memories of the “hard many years” of campaigning for the ordination of girls. But that must also give hope that the Church could discover a way through. Her hope now was not for her children — “It might be too late for them” — but for her grandchildren to be blessed, regardless of what their sexuality.
Julie Withers (Chester) said that if something was of God it could endure, and, due to this fact, she would vote against the amendment.
The amendment was lost in all three Houses: Bishops 0-30, with five recorded abstentions; Clergy 66-107, with seven recorded abstentions; Laity 75-105, with six recorded abstentions.
The Revd Lis Goddard (London) moved her amendment, which called on the LLF working groups to organize a review of the LLF process to tell the brand new working group and “learn the teachings of the past”. It was not only friendships that had emerged from the LLF working groups, she said, but additionally a shared attempt to search out a way forward together. She also raised concerns about how well briefed the brand new working groups could be. She advisable that the prevailing working groups meet over again to temporary the brand new groups.
Archbishop Cottrell agreed with Ms Goddard and didn’t wish to throw away the work, saying “but nor will we.” He believed that the amendment would simply delay progress.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) delivered a speech on behalf of Julie Dziegiel (Oxford), who was unable to be present but had been within the LLF working groups. She had described her time as a “sad and sobering” experience. This amendment explicitly ensured that the work that was complete in these groups wouldn’t be lost, Ms Dziegiel had written.
Ed Shaw (Bristol) said that the reply lay within the working groups, and that the way in which forward was to return to them and ask how they might learn.
The Revd Jo Winn-Smith (Guildford) said that LLF had encouraged people to talk over with each other “with love”. She said that the letters from the Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, and the Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Pete Wilcox, “cancelled one another out”. She urged the Synod to proceed at once, but to have an overlap.
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, said that every one Christians ought to be committed to learning and, due to this fact, open to this review. He admitted that he had made mistakes in leading the LLF process, and he desired to apologise for them, because he desired to learn and to vary. A review could help to exorcise the myths that had accrued, particularly the concept that the “Leicester groups” had been a shining light of positivity. “LLF has not been a waste of time or money,” he insisted. It had taught the Church what it meant to be the Church, living well despite division.
The amendment fell since it was lost within the House of Bishops 2-82, with six recorded abstentions, even though it was carried within the Clergy 88-87, with six recorded abstentions; and within the Laity 93-87, with 4 recorded abstentions.
Carl Fender (Lincoln) raised some extent of order that the following amendment within the name of Professor Helen King (Oxford) sought an final result (enabling stand-alone services) that had already been rejected in Ms Brett’s earlier amendment and was, due to this fact, out of order. The chair said that Professor King’s amendment had a broader purport than Ms Brett’s, and so was so as.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Jody Stowell (London)
Professor King moved her amendment, saying that it was unclear whether LLF was stopping or continuing. “It’s an excessive amount of of an end for some, but not enough for others. It’s not a bang: it’s a whimper.” Her amendment would “pep up” the brand new working group to be sure that it was not simply talking, but would deliver motion. Groups split 50/50 on LLF by definition would go nowhere, she said. Instead, she suggested appointing a majority who wanted to search out a way towards what the Synod had voted for, but through the legislative route on which the Bishops had landed. “The route is evident; so let’s go there. We know what the method is; so what are we waiting for?”
Archbishop Cottrell said that he wouldn’t vote for the amendment, but welcomed debate. There was value in balanced representation on working groups, he said. They could be constituted to maneuver forward “purposefully, mindful of the range of the views within the Church”.
The Revd Will Pearson-Gee (Oxford) said that the Church had not stopped the LLF train, but simply repainted it with a recent logo, aiming for a similar destination. “Bishops must let go of a few of their power, because, in the event that they don’t, that train will find yourself within the the exact same place,” he said.
The Revd Dr Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) was each a historian and a realist, and knew that change within the Church happened slowly. Professor King’s amendment created a likelihood for the Synod to debate “bread, and less stones”.
Cathy Rhodes (Sheffield) also supported the amendment, and spoke of “queer couples” who had not had the possibility to support one another during their ministry in the way in which wherein she had enjoyed married to her ordained husband. They must have the possibility of services of blessing in church, too, she said.
The Revd Clive Watts (Leicester) supported the amendment, saying that, over the past 30 years, he had been involved in consultations akin to LLF. He told the Synod that, last 12 months, he had sat by an intensive-care bed as “his loving committed partner of the last 32 years clung to the sting of life. And then the House of Bishops’ draft statement was issued. Coming when it did, this felt like one betrayal too many. As the person I’ve loved for over three many years clung to life, the Church I’ve loved all that point finally broke what little trust I had left.” He said that the Bishops had offered rejection when people needed “hope and compassion”. The amendment was not an try and silence voices, he concluded: “all views must be heard.”
The amendment was lost in all Houses: Bishops 12-21, with three recorded abstentions; Clergy 81-94, with 4 recorded abstentions; and Laity 86-100, with three recorded abstentions.
A motion to shut the talk then fell, 173-208, with 17 recorded abstentions.
The Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, said that, in the course of the afternoon’s debate, the Bishops had been accused of blocking progress and “giving stones as an alternative of bread”. Although there have been disagreements among the many Bishops, there have been also broad agreements of caution regarding “anything that may undermine our ecclesiology or our Anglican identity”, she said. She emphasised that there was no “abuse of power”, but that the Bishops had tried to fulfil their responsibilities as much as they might.
Simon Friend (Exeter) said that the lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ people and the discomfort of those that feared change weren’t the identical. He rejected the language that suggested that “there’s pain on either side,” and said that one side represented a wound, while the opposite reflected a conviction.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) was unsure vote on the initial motion, as he feared that the working groups would provide you with an answer only to be rejected by the Bishops, leaving the Church back where it began. He said that a settlement may very well be found along the lines of the 2014 agreement over women bishops.
Piyush Jani (co-opted) said that the Synod must recognise that it exercised only authority derived from Christ. Members must heed the warning of the first-century Temple, which was destroyed in God’s judgement since it departed from the way in which of the Lord. “Let us learn first from Christ, then from one another.”
The Archdeacon of Cheltenham, the Ven. Katrina Scott (Gloucester), referred to the lament, anger, and disappointment palpable within the chamber. But she didn’t want those listening to listen to only negative words when talking about sex and relationships and LGBTQ people. She supported the motion, and spoke of the decision to be people of “love, gratitude, and hope”.
Susan Cavill (Derby) said that her vicar had consulted the congregation and PCC over the PLF during a discussion morning. It had turn into clear that there have been views each for and against, but nobody wanted this to separate the church, and either side thought that stand-alone services outside regular worship were an affordable compromise. Of course, this was now not an option, however it may very well be a way forward for unity for the entire Church, she suggested.
The Revd Kate Massey (Coventry) had been moved by how her LGBTQ friends were coping with the way in which wherein the Church had “denied their dignity”. The past 4 years had broken her friends, but they were still prepared to offer the Church one other likelihood, she said. It was an uninspiring motion, but she would vote for it. “Let us commit to the journey together, and next time do higher by God’s grace.”
The Revd Andy Fyall (Methodist Church) acknowledged that he was chatting with a “hurting Church”, but got here from the Methodists, who had travelled an identical journey in recent times. The Methodists’ own journey on same-sex relationships had ended with their searching for to be an inclusive Church. It had not been easy, but had been “greater than price while”. He urged for more dialogue between the 2 denominations.
The Archbishop of Canterbury praised members for the tone of their debate and their longer-term engagement in LLF. She honoured those that had felt wounded by the method but had remained with the Church. She thought that the motion created a “sensible way forward to the following steps”. “Hope is a muscle that we’d like to flex,” she said: hope not within the Church, but in God.
Canon Vaughan Roberts (Oxford) was exhausted on the prospect that this process would proceed, however the motion had not sketched out a “completely recent approach” to stop the Synod going “round and round again”. He knew that the 2 sides would never meet in the center: each felt that this was a matter of “gospel integrity”. They could proceed fighting for a winner-takes-all approach and forcing the losers out of the Church — or, he said, they might work together towards a settlement. The working groups showed the beginnings of that. He knew that the House of Bishops was not ready to simply accept that type of “differentiation”, but he thought that this is able to be a “lesser pain” than the alternatives. “Otherwise, we are going to proceed in pain for years to come back.”
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of Birmingham, Dr Michael Volland, supports the motion
Pip Collins White (Youth Representatives) could see that there was a will within the chamber to resolve this intractable conflict. “I don’t understand how resolution will be reached, but I do have hope that our Church will soon now not feel the pain.” Over time, with recent voices and concepts, something more hopeful could emerge; so please support the motion, he told the Synod.
The Interim Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley, who was in favour of the motion, referred to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, saying that Synod felt weary of debating LLF. The theological understanding of what it meant to live in love and faith had been a “long and hard one”. She urged members to look beyond personal stories to “the story of the creator, God, who loves all that he’s made”.
After a counted vote by Houses, the unamended motion was carried: Bishops, 34-0, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 109-62, with ten recorded abstentions; Laity 109-70, with nine recorded abstentions.
The motion read:
That this Synod:
a) recognise and lament the distress and pain many have suffered in the course of the LLF process, especially LGBTQI+ people;
b) affirm that the LLF Programme and all work initiated by the February 2023 LLF Motion and subsequent LLF Motions will conclude by July 2026;
c) thank the LLF Working Groups for his or her committed and expensive work, which is able to now draw to a detailed with the conclusion of this synodical process;
d) commend the House of Bishops in establishing the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group and Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group for continuing work.
Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here
 got here to an end after a protracted and impassioned debate on the Thursday, wherein members...){kind=link}