what now for many who cannot ‘conform to disagree’?

Yesterday the Bishop of Leicester, Martyn Snow, tried to reset the continued Living in Love and Faith (LLF) debate, asking the General Synod of the Church of England “to be reconciled with God and show this by being reconciled to at least one one other”. 

He talked of the missionary imperative of the Church finding a method to ‘conform to disagree’ and pleaded for Synod to avoid “a series of speeches simply saying, ‘Synod must agree with me’, or others just need to vary their mind”.

But the issue facing the Church is, as Ed Shaw said, “We don’t all consider the identical things in the case of identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage.”

He moved an amendment that asked the General Synod to recognise that for lots of their number, “Some of the problems raised are usually not matters on which they’ll simply conform to disagree,”

He explained the issue: “We have been implicitly and explicitly told that we will conform to disagree; that these issues don’t matter an excessive amount of; that they are usually not problems with primary importance; that they don’t impact the gospel; that we don’t need to vary our doctrine or structures.

“But they’re problems with primary importance for therefore lots of us, from a variety of various perspectives; they do impact our understanding of the gospel; they’re leading to vary in our doctrine and our structures will, I’m afraid, must follow.

“My amendment simply seeks to be honest concerning the depth of our current division.”

In a bizarre turn of events, Synod proceeded to vote against the amendment – in effect denying the existence of the very Synod members who moments before had stood before them and explained why they might not conform to disagree. Twenty of the thirty-four bishops present voted this fashion.

Despite all his talk of not using speeches to call on others to vary their mind, Bishop Snow led the charge against Shaw’s amendment.

In his response, the bishop explained that while he acknowledged the reality it contained, he couldn’t support it because he “feared that enshrining this within the motion is fairly a counsel of despair, of claiming there are not any latest and imaginative ways for us”.

Synod member, Rev Graham Kirk-Spriggs, went further, describing any type of differentiation that recognised that this was a difficulty on which individuals couldn’t in conscience conform to disagree as “a disturbing development”, “structural prejudice” and “entirely un-Anglican”.

He went on to challenge the orthodox bishops, saying, “Bishops, you might have a selection, once you set on that purple shirt, once you might be given a mitre and staff, you possibly can either catch the attention of unity or factionalism – not each.”

It seems that the one acceptable “latest and imaginative” ways forward are those which depend on people agreeing to disagree. This places conservative members of General Synod, whether bishops, clergy or laity, in a really difficult place as the talk resumes this morning.

Susie Leafe is director of Anglican Futures, which supports orthodox Anglicans within the UK.