Helen King’s motion for General Synod: a help or a hindrance?

This July, in the final session of this quinquennium, General Synod is due to debate a Private Members Motion from Helen King suggesting that there are no fundamental objections to committed same-sex relationships. Because of its timing, and the ambiguity of its wording, some have argued it must be opposed.

Andrew Goddard here assesses the motion and, rather than simply rejecting it out of hand, notes seven potential positives about it, around the nature of its language, but also six serious problems, chiefly arising from its ambiguity. Debate could open the door to great clarity and some agreement.

However, LLF was brought to an end because of the deeply damaging nature of the debate, and it would be tragic if, when there is potential for perhaps finding a new and better path going forward, the final meeting of this Synod simply repeated the mistakes of the last three and a half years.

Andrew Goddard writes: At the July 2025 General Synod there was scheduled a debate on a potentially highly divisive Private Members Motion (PMM) from Mae Christie, a known critic of the church’s current teaching. It related to the place of Issues in Human Sexuality in the discernment process for ordination and was originally and rightly seen by many committed to the church’s current teaching and practice as undermining of that teaching. Much to people’s pleasant surprise, as a result of discussions and good will and careful amendment, it resulted in an outcome which secured widespread support across different views on sexuality. This, as Ian Paul noted on this blog, was in part because of the approach of the person who introduced the PMM in Christie’s absence:

Here we have someone who is clear he is campaigning for change in the Church’s doctrine of marriage, but recognises that this cannot be brought about by sleight of hand, and has worked actively with those upholding the Church’s historic teaching to come to a workable and reasonable agreement.

This July, at the final General Synod before the Synod elections, there will be a debate on another potentially highly divisive PMM, this time from Professor Helen King, another critic of the church’s current teaching. At 12^th May, as at the end of March, it was just one signature short of being top of the current PMMs with 169 Synod members (up from 161 mid-Feb) supporting it.

Headed “Same-Sex Relationships Compatibility With Christian Discipleship” it reads

That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.

The motion is significant for at least two reasons. 

First because of its timing as the LLF process draws to a close but a new process is about to be launched and as elections take place for the next 5-year Synod (which might have been thought to be an argument against scheduling a debate, leaving it for the new Synod to consider the matter perhaps under a new PMM). 

Second because of its substance. If it is debated then it will arguably, and surprisingly, be I think the first substantive debate in Synod focused very specifically in its wording on the question of the ethics of same-sex relationships for Christians since the Higton motion back in 1987. This was overwhelmingly passed as a statement of traditional Christian teaching on sex and marriage (for wording and context of that motion see here).

How is the motion to be interpreted? The PMM & Church Teaching

It is clear that given its provenance and wording most who uphold the church’s teaching and believe it to be based on Scripture are very concerned about Synod passing the motion. CEEC reports that “The Evangelical Group on General Synod (EGGS) will be working to defeat the motion in as an effective way as possible”.

Sadly, one contributory factor here is simply the polarisation which has marked this Synod. In some cases it seems the logic almost amounts to: if this motion comes from Helen King and is supported by this group of people then it can only be hostile to the church’s teaching and require opposition from those who support that teaching. But if votes are decided on those terms rather than the wording of the motion and corporate deliberation then we appear to have abandoned all attempt to reason together and instead be willing simply to mimic general “party politics”, forgetting the surprising outcome of a year ago.

So what about the wording of the motion? That has led some to conclude opposition is the only viable approach. Martin Davie, for example, has set out his reasons “Why Faithful Christians Should Reject Helen King’s Private Member’s Motion” (he has since added further reflections supporting his approach and critiquing the motion here).

I want here to explore in more detail Martin Davie’s first reason for taking this position – “that the precise meaning of the motion is unclear” and that the motion “lacks clarity about the precise nature of this relationship”. This raises the question as to whether—by intention or inadvertently—the motion will have the effect, in Ian Paul’s words about the original motion last year, of bringing about a change in the church’s teaching “by sleight of hand”. Davie clearly believes it would and thus it must be opposed.

The motion would have that effect if its wording was opposed to what is stated in the Pastoral Guidance for Prayers of Love and Faith, namely that

The Church of England teaches that Holy Matrimony is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, blessed by God in creation and pointing to the love between Christ and the Church; a way of life which Christ makes holy. It is within marriage that sexual intimacy finds its proper place.

In other words, the current position of the Church of England is that there are “fundamental objections” if a same-sex relationship presents itself as Holy Matrimony or involves “sexual intimacy”. It is these two areas which are the major fault-lines in the church and which have caused so many difficulties in relation to Prayers of Love and Faith and the pattern of life the church expects of its ordained leaders.

It is, however, these two contentious areas on which the PMM is notably silent although its proposer and the overwhelming majority (perhaps even all) of its signatories are known to dissent from the church’s teaching in relation to one or both of these elements. Perhaps inevitably in the current climate this silence but partisan support makes many suspicious that the motion is intended to undermine the teaching and this is all indeed “sleight of hand” or a Trojan Horse. In fact, it will be argued below, that if this is the intention of the motion and the effect of it passing then it risks undermining much more than the church’s current approach to same-sex relationships. But is this the only possible interpretation or is there the possibility that its supporters might, in Ian Paul’s words on what happened last year, “work[ed] actively with those upholding the Church’s historic teaching to come to a workable and reasonable agreement”?

Assessing the motion’s wording: Positives

From the perspective of those who believe the current position of the Church of England is right there are at least the following 7 elements in the motion which I think are acceptable, even positive and encouraging signs and developments given some aspects of recent debates.

Firstly, the motion recognises that a key question we need to be addressing is the proper pattern of “Christian discipleship” and that an account of Christian discipleship includes within it questions concerning same-sex relationships.

One of the many serious weaknesses in the whole PLF process was that it failed to really speak into the question of what was to be seen as a faithful form of Christian discipleship and way of holy living especially for those who identify as gay, lesbian or same-sex attracted.

Secondly, in stating that a same-sex relationship with certain qualities “can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship” it is by implication acknowledging that these qualities, though necessary for compatibility are not in and of themselves sufficient for the relationship to be compatible with Christian discipleship.

The motion could have said that such a relationship “is entirely compatible” with discipleship. This would echo the longstanding statement of OneBodyOneFaith and previously the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) whose members affirm that “it is their conviction that it is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of the same sex….” (italics added).

That instead it says such relationships “can be entirely compatible with” means that it recognises that such relationships also “can not be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship”. The key question then becomes what are the tests as to whether or not such a relationship, defined in these broad terms, actually is entirely compatible. Here is where there will be deep disagreement but the motion itself remains silent. Strictly speaking the motion says nothing determinative about what constitutes a same-sex relationship that is entirely compatible with Christian discipleship, only that there can be such a relationship and what the minimal conditions are for this to become a possibility.

Thirdly, the motion is expressed in terms of the sex of those in the relationship and does not use common terminology used in relation to sexual identity or refer to sexual orientation.

This motion is thus different from the 2007 motion from Mary Gilbert (which referred to “the nature of homosexual orientation”, “lesbian and gay Christians/people”) or more recent motions that have embraced the language of “LGBTQI+”. This again should be welcomed by those who argue that a biblical and Christian theological anthropology means the key ethical questions here relate to people’s biological sex not to what identity they have embraced or what they believe their sexual orientation to be.

Fourthly, the qualities that the motion highlights (“committed, faithful, intimate”) are all, once properly defined, to be recognised as goods in human relationships (unless the relationship is inherently ordered to wrongdoing) that we should be able and willing to recognise. 

The recent controversy has not been over whether such qualities or goods are to be viewed positively or can be evident in same-sex relationships. Controversy is focussed on whether and/or how such descriptors can be appropriately used given there are also certain other important, even integral, aspects of the relationship which the church views as sinful.

There is a risk that simply opposing this motion would appear either to deny that commitment, faithfulness and intimacy are goods or to say that such goods cannot ever be found and so should never be sought in any form of same-sex relationship. This will then easily be portrayed as meaning that those who hold to the church’s teaching are telling those who identify as gay or lesbian that they are to be deprived of commitment, faithfulness and intimacy in a same-sex relationship if they are to remain true disciples.

Fifthly, as many committed to received teaching have argued—such as Ed Shaw in his The Intimacy Deficit (also this article and see this review at CEEC) and Elaine Storkey in The Search for Intimacy)—it is important that we do not as Christians follow many within our contemporary society and conflate or confuse “intimacy” with “sex” or “romantic love”. 

Here it is interesting that the Pastoral Guidance quoted above is rightly clear that marriage is the proper place not for “intimacy” (which can be found in various places) but “sexual intimacy”.

It is also I think again significant here that the LGCM/OneBodyOneFaith statement we have already seen this motion echoes but also adapts in its language of “entirely compatible” is significantly different:

It is the conviction of the members of OneBodyOneFaith….that it is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of the same sex, but also to express that love fully in a personal sexual relationship (italics added)

Similarly back in 1979 (debated in General Synod in 1981) the Gloucester Report entitled Homosexual Relationships: A Contribution to Discussion, from the CofE’s Board for Social Responsibility reached the conclusion that

We do not think it possible to deny that there are circumstances in which individuals may justifiably choose to enter into a homosexual relationship with the hope of enjoying a companionship and physical expression of sexual love similar to that found in marriage (para 168, italics added)

These are both statements which those who uphold the church’s traditional teaching, based on its understanding of Scripture’s teaching, could not support. The wording of the motion, however, avoids making any such statement. Is this “sleight of hand” or, to put it bluntly, duplicity? Or is it evidence that the statement is not seeking to address this question but genuinely open to seeing if we can find agreement on a different question across our differences on sexual ethics and the nature of marriage?

Sixthly, although a matter of continuing discussion and discernment, many of those committed to the church’s traditional teaching have wanted to explain that although this teaching does lead to clear ethical boundaries concerning same-sex relationships it does not prohibit all forms of “committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships”. 

Here one might think of the writing of Wes Hill (most fully in Spiritual Friendship: Finding Love in the Church as a Celibate Gay Christian), the work of Hill and others such as Eve Tushnet and Mark Yarhouse at Spiritual Friendship, and the work of Gregory Coles especially his paper on “Understanding Celibate Partnerships and Committed Friendships” at Preston Sprinkle’s Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender.

There is already some level of recognition within the Church of England for relationships meeting this description which, to varying degrees, those who are committed to the church’s teaching, accept: the recognition of a celibate same-sex civil partnership (an option currently open to clergy) and the largely unexplained and unexplored category of “Covenant Friendship” which exists within the Prayers of Love and Faith.

Seventhly, in using the language of “committed” and “faithful” the motion is not using the much more precise and restrictive language that the church uses to define marriage. 

If this was meant to be a motion seeking simply to affirm same-sex marriage the terms should be something like “permanent” (or “lifelong”) and “exclusive”. These are what make a male-female union a marriage: “a union permanent and lifelong…to the exclusion of all others on either side” (Canon B30). Once again these broader qualities are necessary for same-sex marriage but they are not sufficient and it is quite possible to affirm the descriptors here but reject the claim that such relationships are a form of marriage and to argue it would be wrong to present such a relationship as a marriage.

Assessing the motion’s wording: Problems

Having said all that, it remains the case that the wording is ambiguous. This then raises a number of problems not only in relation to same-sex relationships but for the church’s wider sexual ethic.

Firstly, in both wider society and much of the church a motion simply stating that “being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship”, is something to which “there are no fundamental objections” and “can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship” will be heard and understood by many to be affirming of sexual same-sex unions perhaps also including same-sex marriage. 

That realistic assessment of what will be communicated—and the concern that disseminating this message if Synod passes the motion is the intended aim of at least some of the motion’s advocates—is why the arguments above will appear largely unpersuasive to many who hold to the church’s teaching. To address this will require greater clarity and reassurances from the motion’s supporters and likely, as a year ago, a form of words in an amendment that will address these concerns.

Secondly, if the relationships that are described and commended here in these terms of “committed”, “faithful” and “intimate” do include sexual relationships then some of the positives noted above instead become serious problems. 

This makes the motion potentially much more serious in its implications for the church’s teaching about Christian discipleship in relation to sex. The motion is then stating that sex is acceptable for a disciple of Christ within a pattern of relationship which is simply marked by being “committed, faithful, intimate”. If that is the case for a “same-sex relationship” why are different tests required for an opposite-sex relationship? 

It must be remembered that one reason for such deep concern about the original PLF proposal in early 2023 was that it was to be offered to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The paper to Synod (GS 2289) seemed in a number of places to rewrite the church’s sexual ethic so as to be concerned not with marital status but simply these qualities in a relationship. The Archbishop of York, in words again similar to but significantly different from those of the motion, publicly stated in January 2023: “what we are saying is that physical and sexual intimacy belongs in committed, stable, faithful relationships” (italics added).

Unless there is some good reason for there to be a double-standard, if there is “no fundamental objection” to sex within such a committed, faithful, intimate relationship between people of the same sex why should there be any fundamental objection to sex within any such relationship between a man and a woman? A critique sometimes made of traditional teaching is that it unjustly places a more restrictive sexual ethic on gay and lesbian people but if this wording includes sexual same-sex relationships it either rewrites the church’s wider sexual ethic or introduces a more permissive sexual ethic on same-sex relationships than opposite-sex relationships.

Thirdly, this raises the question about the three descriptors that have been chosen in the motion and what they mean, especially if they are to include within their scope sexual relationships. 

A classic statement advocating same-sex unions (and later marriage) is that by Jeffrey John which was entitled Permanent, Faithful, Stable. These three terms are also in need of more careful definition but how significant is it that both “permanent” and “stable” are lacking here? What conclusions are to be drawn from the fact they have been replaced simply by “committed” with no explanation as to the nature or level of that commitment?

There has been a long concern about occasional and non-exclusive male same-sex sexual relationships being acceptable, including among gay Christians (see for example the 1997 work of Andrew Yip whose research with gay male Christian couples found “the majority of couples were expectationally and behaviourally non-exclusive; the recently deceased leading campaigner Malcolm Johnson expressed surprise in his Diary of a Gay Priest that “a third are physically faithful—or say they are!”). Leaving that question open is one reason the LGCM statement quoted above offered no criteria as to when expressing love fully in a sexual relationship was entirely compatible with the Christian faith (see Sean Gill, The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (Cassell, 1998), pp. 12-13).

In a world of rapidly changing sexual norms there is now much wider discussion and acceptance of “ethical non-monogamy” (ENM). As briefly explained in this “ethics explainer” from The Ethics Centre this is distinguished from “infidelity” and “cheating”. Here it is not unreasonable to ask whether those in such an ENM form of relationship might nevertheless still be able to be classed as in a “committed, faithful, intimate” form of relationship.

Fourthly, if in fact those who support the motion and wish to include sexual relationships within its ambit believe that sex is for marriage then, as noted above, these descriptors fall a long way short of mirroring the pattern of relationships for male-female relationships which we call marriage. 

Once again, the motion is either a sign that the statement does not intend to include sexual relationships or to advocate for same-sex marriage or it means that the motion seriously redefines the proper context of sexual intimacy and rewrites the church’s whole sexual ethic or offers a different (non-marital) sexual ethic for a same-sex couple compared to the (marital) sexual ethic for an opposite-sex couple. The difference between these two options is very significant and cannot be safely left ambiguous.

Fifthly, given the pressure to reject the current prohibition on the ordination of those in same-sex marriages (as one form of “committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship”) the concern of many is that the motion is meant to secure Synodical support to promote that development.

As Martin Davie highlights, the language of “no fundamental objections to” echoes—probably purposefully—the language of the 1975 General Synod motion that paved the way (albeit over 15 years later – a reminder that even once principles are agreed the CofE moves slowly!) for the ordination of women:

That this Synod considers that there are no fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood

If this is the aim then the argument might look something like this:

if

1. there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship and
2. such a relationship is entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and
3. same-sex marriages are a form of such relationship

then

4. why is something entirely compatible with Christian discipleship a bar to ordination?

This is, however, slippery. As noted above the motion does not state (2) but rather says they “can be entirely compatible” and so the logic breaks down. That nuance, however, will easily get lost and arguably the “no fundamental objections to” (which is the language taken from that earlier motion on women’s ordination) allows (1) and (3) to be combined to ask a variant of (4): why is something to which “there are no fundamental objections” being made a bar to ordination? Again this is flawed—if the relationship is not just marked by these qualities but is legally a marriage then it is misrepresenting the church’s teaching about the nature of marriage—but not all will recognise this.

A key question therefore remains: if facilitating same-sex married clergy by this motion is the aim then why such “sleight of hand” rather than clarity in the wording of the motion?

Sixthly, these problems with the motion’s ambiguity and the possible conclusions and communications that could arise if the motion is passed by a small majority without amendment and clarification are all a recipe for perpetuating and even increasing misunderstanding, raising false hopes, and deepening distrust. 

The whole PLF process has led to this litany of damaging outcomes in the church’s life. We have succeeded in creating increased polarisation with nobody happy. One large part of the church is unhappy that the bishops have not only kept the bar on same-sex married clergy but now prevent what previously many clergy offered (some form of public stand-alone service for a same-sex couple). Another large part of the church is unhappy that the bishops, without a widespread consensus, have now commended prayers and made statements that are indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine.

It was in part because the LLF/PLF has had such damaging effects that the bishops and the last Synod decided to bring it to completion, pause and start a new process. It would be tragic if, when there is potential for perhaps finding a new and better path going forward, the final meeting of this Synod simply repeated the mistakes of the last three and a half years.

Conclusion

There is much to be said for the position that it was unwise for this Synod, which has been so bitterly divided over matters of sexuality, to timetable yet another painful debate and likely polarising vote on these matters in its final session. Would it not have been much better to leave it to the newly elected Synod to come at these questions afresh? This could be in terms of specific proposals (likely from the bishops) on matters left unaddressed by the Living in Love and Faith process when it concluded or, as in this motion, in terms of a substantive statement about Christian discipleship.

This is even more the case should the problems highlighted above not be constructively or adequately addressed especially if it is the case the motion potentially undermines the church’s teaching about sexual ethics and discipleship even more widely than in relation to same-sex relationships.

One option of course would be to do as Synod did back in February 2024 when it was presented with PLF proposals still needing further work: have a debate but move to next business.

But what if the motion’s proponents are not here attempting some “sleight of hand” or final victory (even if only by another 52:48 margin) in the closing session of this Synod?

What if this is offered as a form of wording about same-sex relationships and discipleship which might be able to help Synod find more widespread agreement across the church’s divisions and put questions of ethics and discipleship more to the forefront of whatever process follows the Living in Love and Faith project?

If that is the intention then it may just be possible that, as last year, with careful conversation and agreed amendments, this PMM could enable the Synod to draw to a close in a more constructive way. It may be that it is possible to discern a form of words for a motion that could clarify where there is a wider consensus than we have yet acknowledged.

Our well-known disagreements cannot be avoided for ever but nor do they always need to be made central to every one of our discussions. We need to find ways of considering these matters without generating yet another bruising round in the boxing ring. By not explicitly raising these areas of disagreement this motion could be an opportunity to discern and state a shared positive vision that can be heard as good news. This in turn could also provide a framing for the ongoing discussions in the newly elected Synod. It may also help bring greater clarity as to the areas—including the church’s wider sexual ethic beyond its teaching in relation to same-sex relationships and not just its doctrine of marriage—where our deep disagreements are really to be found.

In these areas what we currently need is not more up-down votes on ambiguous words which sustain and fuel mutual suspicion. What we need is more sustained prayer for honest conversation, greater political wisdom and further corporate biblical study and theological reflection, not least among our constantly changing episcopal leadership and those to be elected to the new Synod this summer.

Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, (where his wife Lis Goddard is vicar) Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC).