THE lead bishop on Living in Love and Faith (LLF), the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, introduced a presentation to the General Synod on the most recent developments in the method, on Saturday afternoon, which was followed by questions.
“This isn’t the controversy before the controversy,” he said. “Rather, that is about planning before the controversy, and knowing what’s and isn’t being proposed.”
Nick Shepherd, the LLF programme director, moderated a presentation by six members of the working groups, who had met for a weekend in Leicester in May (News, 8 May).
The disagreements were real, the Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) said, and deeply held. It was essential to recognise this while remaining in conversation, but, when gathered together, “you’ll be able to’t ignore the humanity of the people you’re in conversation with.”
The Revd Neil Patterson (Hereford) said that he was the one representative of the pastoral-guidance group sitting on the panel because he had been the just one who had agreed to talk. Discussion was sometimes frustrated by attempts to query the idea of the controversy, and “hyperbolic language”, which was, he said, unhelpful.
The Ven. Nikki Groarke (Worcester) had “quite enjoyed” the weekend, though admitted that it was “really labor”. Some of the things that had been said were “hurtful”, but additionally honest, and the incontrovertible fact that they were all staying together meant that it was possible to speak about things over a drink. Any settlement going forward would inevitably be “a bit fuzzy and messy” since it was experimental, she warned.
The weekend had been a possibility to try to know what others thought in regards to the structures of the Church, the Ven. Sally Gaze (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) said. Kenson Li (UKME co-opted) spoke in regards to the friendships that had been forged in Leicester, saying that these could be “foundational” to ongoing discussion.
The Revd Mark Miller (Durham) agreed, and referred to Mr Li: “I believe he’s fallacious, and he thinks I’m fallacious”; but, while accepting that the differences were intractable, it transpired that “time and friendship” enabled them to debate ways forward. Being physically together was essential: “Having had breakfast together, being within the room, starts to make a difference.”
Later, Mr Li said that he hoped “the language and learning we’ve done in Leicester won’t be lost, because I can see it slipping”, referring to the questions sessions earlier.
Dr Doherty said that “quite a number” of the members of the working groups had felt that they needed to distance themselves from the paper which had been produced after the weekend and presented to the House of Bishops (News, 17 May). But “simply because someone [has] signed one letter or statement, that doesn’t mean they’re lining themselves up with the entire letters and statements which have been flying about”. He suggested that those that resisted the proposals weren’t a monolith.
Mr Patterson spoke to the bishops sitting in front of the stage, suggesting that sometimes they were the “stuck nut” in the method. Archdeacon Gaze said that “cultivating trust” and “being attentive to power” was vital.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesSynod members on the University of York campus on Saturday afternoon
Mr Shepherd displayed a timeline of the subsequent stages should the Synod support the proposals, which might see the working groups resume with the House of Bishops to attract up the guidance; a Bishops’ statement outlining the integrity of various positions; and a code of practice over the autumn. The three elements should work together, he said. The Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) would also proceed working on doctrinal questions in relation to clergy who enter same-sex marriages, which was resulting from be handed to the bishops in January. The pastoral-guidance working group had hit several hurdles about this which had left them unable to recommend a way forward without additional theological resources.
Even if the Synod voted through the House of Bishops’ proposals, stand-alone services wouldn’t be introduced for his or her trial period until after the Synod met in February 2025, when the Bishops would update members, Mr Shepherd clarified. Nor would the present use of the Prayer of Love and Faith for scheduled services be affected within the interim. The timeline would then mean that the Synod and the dioceses could be consulted, and a report on their feedback brought back for the July 2025 Synod. There was a balance to be struck between moving fast but not so quickly that the method was rushed.
The three bishops who chaired the working groups then took over the presentation. The Bishop of Taunton, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley, who chaired the group in regards to the Prayers of Love and Faith, said that her group felt comfortable with where that they had landed. Permission to make use of stand-alone services went in parallel with provision for pastoral care and reassurance for either side, she said. Having checked out the canonical route, the group felt that it will constrain their ability to properly test out the stand-alone services, and an extended three-year trial period felt more appropriate.
The Bishop of Stockport, the Rt Revd Sam Corley, said that elements of the pastoral guidance felt “a bit like chicken and egg”. But he and others had been deeply reassured by the Leicester weekend that there was still a spot for him, and indeed for everybody, within the Church. His group had grappled with the way to enable clergy to enter same-sex marriage, and struggled to seek out a way that might last beyond changes in bishops, leaving the guidance irrelevant. They also wanted guidance that might work for DDOs, theological colleges, and people within the discernment process, without creating postcode lotteries.
“The feeling within the group was that the pastoral guidance can’t carry the load of answering for the Church whether or not clergy can enter into same-sex marriage,” he said, hence more theological issues had first been referred to FAOC.
Bishop Snow then briefly reiterated the end result of his working group on pastoral provision, which was centred on delegated episcopal oversight. This had, to his slight surprise, been signed off in principle by the House of Bishops. He said that members must appreciate how difficult it was for any bishop to contemplate passing care over to others — “so please don’t take that evenly in any way in any respect”.
In questions from the ground, the Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) said that more transparency was required, including the legal advice, minutes from the House of Bishops, and documents shown to the Leicester working groups.
Helen King (Oxford) asked why everyone on the panel from the working groups was either ordained or an ordinand. “Where are the laity?” There was a chumminess among the many clergy which was excluding lay people from contributing, she suggested.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Acting Bishop of Coventry, the Bishop of Taunton, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley
Simon Friend (Exeter) desired to speak about “the elephant within the room”: the recent open letter from the conservative Alliance group (News, 5 July). How can this conversation be had properly, when others involved were already moving rapidly towards unilateral motion, he asked.
Bishop Snow said that the bishops were learning as they went along about what it meant to be transparent and trustworthy, but that this didn’t mean every little thing being published. The Leicester meeting went a lot better once the participants got beyond their mistrust, he said. “We are doing our greatest; it’s not perfect, but we wish the identical end result as staying together as one Church.”
Bishop Worsley acknowledged that it was only clergy on the stage, but said that each working group had had lay members amongst them, and that she had sought “as broad as base as possible”.
Bishop Corley said that that they had tried their best to balance each gender and lay/ordained, nevertheless it was difficult, given aligning diaries.
Bishop Snow declined to comment on the Alliance letter, saying that how other networks beyond Synod responded to the controversy on Monday was as much as them.
Canon Mark Bennet (Oxford) asked how good personal relationships may very well be built into the pastoral guidance and episcopal oversight.
The Archdeacon of Bath, the Ven. Dr Adrian Youings (Bath & Wells), asked for clarity about when the three-year trial of stand-alone services would begin, and whether it was open-ended.
Canon John Dunnett (Chelmsford) asked whether the pastoral provision would even be a three-year trial, or whether that was only relevant for the standalone services. He also asked how the Synod could “uncommend” the services at the top of the trial.
Bishop Corley said that the relational side of the guidance could be crucial, while Bishop Worsley said that the “discernment period” would gather feedback on each the stand-alone services and the concurrent pastoral provision. This could even be trialled on a regional basis to check it out before ensuring national consistency. The services couldn’t begin until the pastoral provision was fully rolled out, she said.
Bishop Snow said that he struggled to see a scenario wherein, should the Prayers of Love and Faith be commended by the bishops, they might later be “uncommended” following the trial period. But that didn’t mean that there was not plenty of learning to be done about the way to use them well. “We is not going to get it right at first.” He also said that it was possible that laws underpinning the pastoral provision may very well be introduced down the road, although not at first, as it will take too long.
Anna de Castro (Sheffield) asked how the language of “three spaces” had been abandoned, as so many members felt that this was essential for his or her support to proceed.
Emily Hill (Hereford) asked whether changing the membership of the working groups would set back the timeline.
Rosalind Clarke (Lichfield) said that her understanding was that when the Prayers were first presented, that they had not been about same-sex marriage; so why did the guidance on how they were used must tackle whether clergy could enter such marriages? This could also be a difficulty of deep concern to some, nevertheless it didn’t seem relevant to the prayers, she suggested.
Bishop Snow said that there had been a robust backlash to the “three spaces” language, since it felt like a division from the College of Bishops; hence the agreement to delegate episcopal oversight was a giant concession from the College.
Bishop Worsley said that it will be good to listen to recent voices within the working groups, while retaining some continuity.
Bishop Corley said that the guidance had to handle same-sex marriages for clergy, as people desired to know whether priests could or couldn’t receive the identical Prayers that they were offering to put people. Even if it was not a theological necessity, it was a pastoral one, he said.
The Bishop of Bath & Wells, the Rt Revd Michael Beasley, asked whether introducing stand-alone services constituted a change of doctrine as defined under Canon B30.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) asked how guidance may very well be given to dioceses to assist them to have interaction similarly well with the consultations.
The Revd Chantal Noppen (Durham) asked whether all of the working-group members had done the LLF course and browse the book, and reiterated that the Synod had voted multiple times to delegate the duty of implementing the Prayers to the Bishops. “We have to be assured there isn’t going to be further slippage.”
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Revd Chantal Noppen (Durham)
Bishop Snow said that the House of Bishops has agreed, although not unanimously, that the Prayers didn’t constitute a change of doctrine in any essential matter. It went back to the query of when does doctrine change, and the way will we resolve, which FAOC was working on, he said. “There may come a degree when we’ve to take a look at a proper change of doctrine, because that’s what a majority of the House of Bishops want; but we usually are not at that time yet.”
Bishop Worsley said that ways to take a look at quantitative feedback on the standalone services were already being explored, but that nothing had yet been decided.
Bishop Corley said that the Leicester groups had not been re-litigating the LLF process, but trying to seek out ways of implementing the motions already agreed by the Synod — “which didn’t have lots of wiggle room in them” — so that folks felt they might remain within the Church.
Sandra Turner (Chelmsford) said that she felt as if she were being asked to sign a blank cheque for each side of the controversy. “We have to be clear what we’re being asked to vote on.”
Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford) said that the Church had a process for the authorisation for types of service for experimental periods: why has a “make it up as you go” process been adopted as a substitute?
The Archdeacon of Ludlow, the Ven. Fiona Gibson (Hereford), said that the answers to lots of the questions was to “ask the archdeacon”; what support, due to this fact, could be offered to them to exercise this heavy responsibility?
Bishop Snow said that he was not asking anyone to sign a blank cheque, because the motion simply asked the bishops to do more work on this. Nobody wanted a free-for-all, where everyone could select their very own bishops, but the supply did must work for many who would request it.
Bishop Worsley said that previous use of the canons for experimental liturgies had been explored, nevertheless it was felt that it will be difficult to “road-test what has already been commended” — referring to the PLF in regular services that are already in operation. Instead, they wanted a more flexible period of discernment, not restricted solely to liturgical questions, but that didn’t mean that a canonical route couldn’t be taken at a later stage.
