THE General Synod reached a consensus on a difficulty referring to Living in Love and Faith on Tuesday morning, as members voted almost unanimously to remove a key document from the ordination process.
Issues in Human Sexuality, a teaching document that the Synod has previously agreed ought to be replaced (Synod, 12 July 2024), was withdrawn, after a cross-partisan vote on a non-public member’s motion that had originally been proposed by the Revd Mae Christie, and was on Tuesday fronted by Paul Waddell (each of Southwark).
Issues was approved by the House of Bishops in 1991 and have become a part of the discernment process: candidates were asked to accede to its provisions. Professor Helen King (Oxford) said, nonetheless, that it had never been intended to be utilized in this fashion, nor applied to put people, which, in some instances, she said, it had been.
The document refers throughout to “homophiles”, speaks of “the bisexual”, and suggests that bisexual people should seek counselling “to find the reality of their personality” — a line that some have read as an endorsement of conversion therapy.
Another passage says that it could “clever to ponder” what “ethical criteria” should be considered whether it is found that the “homophile orientation is genetic in origin”, and if it were possible to “eliminate that orientation in future generations by genetic engineering”.
Several Synod members spoke in regards to the harm that Issues had done to people through the discernment process. Matthew Edwards (Lichfield) said that it had “fallen heavily” on LGBTQ+ people.
The Dean of Women’s Ministry within the diocese of St Albans, the Revd Lucy Davis, said that many ladies considering ordination had been left in tears by what that they had read within the document. Some had dropped out of the discernment process because of this. “Issues must go, and it must go now,” she said.
A distinguished figure from the conservative Evangelical wing of the Church, the Rector of St Ebbe’s, Oxford, Canon Vaughan Roberts, spoke in support of the motion.
He was, he said, someone who “experienced exclusively same-sex attraction”, and didn’t think that Issues was a helpful document. He suggested, nonetheless, that it shouldn’t be removed without some type of substitute; subsequently, he was pleased to support an amendment from the Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester), which might specify that the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (GPCC) stand as a replacement.
Canon Roberts’s speech was met with sustained applause. Mr Waddell thanked him for his contribution, and suggested that it was to be hoped that the collaborative atmosphere of the talk would “set a recent tone” before further debates in February 2026.
The GPCC, which was enacted by the Synod in 2015 and endorsed by the then Archbishops of Canterbury and York, says that “clergy should set an example of integrity in relationships, and faithfulness in marriage.”
It cites a House of Bishops teaching document from 1999 which affirms that “sexual activity, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs inside marriage exclusively.”
Proposing her amendment endorsing the GPCC as a substitute for Issues, Ms Bridgman acknowledged that it was not intended to be a part of the discernment process. It stood to reason, nonetheless, that those testing a vocation should have the opportunity to accede to guidelines for the conduct of priests, she said.
Although it was not in itself a legal document, it pointed to relevant canon law, and would fill the gap before pastoral guidance, a code of practice, and a Bishops’ statement were delivered to Synod.
The Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury) praised the tenor of the talk, and welcomed the substitute of Issues with the GPCC. But the long-term need, he said, was for a “deep, pastorally sensitive, theologically wealthy substitute”.
“We is likely to be on the cusp of a rare moment of consensus on an LLF debate,” Ms Bridgman observed, a sentiment with which the Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) agreed. “Seize the moment,” he urged the Synod, and called for a vote to be taken in order that they may move on to other business.
The chair permitted a couple of more speeches.
Debbie Buggs (London) was the one member to talk against the motion. She recognised that the wording of Issues “wasn’t helpful”, and identified that the Synod had been promised that proposals on recent pastoral guidance, stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples, and a settlement for many who opposed their use would all be presented concurrently. The current motion, she said, amounted to movement on one in every of those three legs, without progress on the opposite two, and that this ought to be resisted.
A vote by a show of hands was taken, and only two or three members opposed the motion.
