PROPOSALS to remove impediments on using latest blessings for same-sex couples in stand-alone services, together with the availability of delegated episcopal ministry for individuals who oppose the changes, were shown a pale green light from the General Synod on Monday afternoon.
After two hours of debate, members voted by narrow majorities within the House of Clergy and the House of Laity in favour of a motion recommend by the lead bishop for Living in Love and Faith (LLF), the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow (News, 21 June).
He acknowledged that, in the present proposals, which also defer a choice on whether priests are permitted to be in same-sex civil marriages until February, “none of us get what we wish”.
But “all of us must trust one another,” he said. “We are united in our hope of sooner or later being sat on the table of heaven, and that will likely be an exquisite sight.”
Despite being imperfect, the motion sought to chart a path forward, he said, acknowledging that there have been those that felt that they were being forced out of the Church, though he didn’t imagine that this was the case.
The Archbishop of Canterbury also urged those that opposed the changes to not walk away, saying that he couldn’t imagine the C of E without the members of the Alliance network — an umbrella group which has been vocal prior to now 12 months. In its most up-to-date letter, it said that it was prepared to ascertain a “parallel province” if the House of Bishops pushed ahead with their plans (News, 27 June).
“The reality of the Church as we live it’s all the time messy,” Archbishop Welby said, but its diversity of traditions was “indispensable to the gospel”.
Many of those within the Synod who opposed the motion argued that the proposals for “pastoral reassurance”, which amount to offering alternative bishops, didn’t go far enough, and that further consideration was needed to seek out a way forward that was acceptable to them.
A notable opponent of the motion was the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, who has previously voted for LLF motions and supported an amendment in November last 12 months calling for stand-alone services to be trialled (News, 17 November 2023).
He was voting against the motion this time, he said, because he felt that it was mandatory to do more work on questions on whether doctrine was being modified by the introduction of services that some feared would resemble weddings.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, argues against the motion
If so, the correct process for his or her introduction was authorisation through the Synod, he suggested, slightly than commendation by the House of Bishops.
On Saturday evening, during a more informal session on LLF, Bishop Snow had said that he struggled to see how, once they’d been commended for a trial period, stand-alone services of blessing might be “uncommended”.
This comment, Helen Lamb (Oxford) said, demonstrated that “the bus is travelling, the route stops are mapped out . . . and without delay, it looks like a few of us are being run over by the bus.” She called for the bishops to interact in further discussion with those that opposed the changes, and to seek out a settlement which they considered acceptable.
If one side of the controversy saw the proposals as steaming ahead in a fashion that was “rushed and unwise”, from the opposite side they looked like “procrastination”. The Revd Stephen Cradduck (Lincoln) made this point, although he said that he would nonetheless be voting for the motion, within the hope that the Church could move on “positively, and by the guidance of the Spirit”.
Unlike in previous debates, where motions endorsed by the Bishops were subject to a raft of attempted amendments, there have been only two amendments tabled to Bishop Snow’s motion.
The first, from the Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, called for resources to be made available to the Faith and Order Commission for the further work it was being asked to do. This proved uncontroversial, and was duly added.
A second, moved by the Revd Andrew Cornes (Chichester), sought to remove a clause within the motion which stated that updated pastoral guidance, and a Bishops’ statement and code of practice which are yet to be drafted, should collectively replace Issues in Human Sexuality.
Notwithstanding problems with Issues, it was “unwise” to switch an extant document with several that had not yet been agreed, Mr Cornes said. “This was asking for an excessive amount of trust.”
Opposing the amendment, several members argued that it had already been agreed that Issues can be replaced. Samuel Wilson (Chester) asked members to trust the Bishops: they “usually are not idiots and wouldn’t propose something to us which doesn’t have the arrogance of this place”.
In the tip, the Cornes amendment was lost in all three houses: Bishops, by 23 votes to 11 (with five recorded abstentions); Clergy, 97 to 93 (with two recorded abstentions); and Laity, 93 to 90 (with three recorded abstentions).
In further debate on the essential motion, the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham, the Rt Revd Paul Williams, urged members to vote against it and invite the Bishops to reconsider slightly than proceeding in a way that, he said, threatened to separate the Church.
The Archdeacon of Bolton and Salford, the Ven. Rachel Mann (Manchester), nonetheless, said that the motion, despite being imperfect, would help move the controversy forward.
It was a sentiment echoed by the Archbishop of York. He emphasised that nobody can be forced to do anything against their conscience, and appealed to members of the Alliance to work with the Bishops to work out what further provision was mandatory.
After a counted vote by houses, the motion as amended was passed in all three houses: Bishops, 22 votes to 12 (with five recorded abstentions); Clergy, 99 to 88 (with two recorded abstentions); Laity, 95 to 91 (with two recorded abstentions).
At the tip of the controversy, Bishop Snow thanked members for the tone wherein it had been conducted. The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, nonetheless, took to social media to deplore a remark made by a lay member for Oxford, Daniel Matovu.
Speaking against the motion, Mr Matovu had said: “So we wish to be the generation of which future generations say: ‘In those days, England had a king, and every bishops taught as he, she, or it saw fit’?”
The term “it”, Dr Hartley said, was “completely unacceptable, whatever theological view you hold”.
