Andrew Goddard writes: This article analyses the July 2026 General Synod’s debate on Helen King’s Private Members’ Motion concerning same-sex relationships and Christian discipleship explored in a previous article.
It traces the two competing amendments before explaining why the eventual amended motion failed in the House of Bishops.
It notes the significant shift in voting among the bishops since they introduced PLF in January 2023 and points to ten possible reasons contributing to this. It then offers three substantive reasons why the motion was opposed by so many:
- it failed to address conservative’s concerns by replacing “no fundamental objection” with a claim as to the “legitimate range” of views,
- it seems not to understand the reasons why, based on Scripture and Tradition, most conservatives cannot accept the legitimacy of the view King advocates,
- it failed to name conservative views and added to the original motion’s ambiguity by not clarifying what range of views was being deemed legitimate.
It shows that the central unresolved issue is not simply disagreement over sexuality and discipleship, but disagreement over whether differing theological positions on this can be recognised as legitimate within the Church of England.
The piece concludes that the next Synod must learn from all this: further unresolvable conflict and pain is unavoidable unless we address with greater honesty and theological rigour (1) questions of discipleship and the recognisability of the legitimacy of different viewpoints, (2) how to recognise and respond to the differences over how serious our disagreements on discipleship are to be viewed, and (3) possible ecclesial reconfiguration to provide spaces for the pluralist reality now present within the Church of England when many cannot accept that pluralism as legitimate.
On Monday morning, on the penultimate day of its existence before being prorogued for new elections, General Synod returned once more to the question that has been a focus of division in its life since early 2023: the Church of England’s teaching in relation to same-sex relationships. It did so, despite the decision of the last Synod in February this year to draw the Living in Love and Faith process to an end, because of a Private Members Motion (PMM) introduced by Professor Helen King, though formally presented in her absence, by Professor Muriel Robinson. As proposed it read
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.
In contrast to the very long debates of earlier Synods this, despite its significant substance, was only scheduled for an hour’s debate (though with the possibility, unsurprisingly realised, of an additional quarter of an hour).
In an earlier article I explored the original motion in some detail, highlighting its significance, seven positives in its wording and six problems, particularly relating to areas of ambiguity and likely consequences. I asked whether it was simply an attempt, with a degree of “sleight of hand”, to advance the position of those pressing for change or whether it was being “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 it was the latter then I hoped that
it might just be possible that, as last year [a debate about Issues in Human Sexuality], 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.
Sadly this proved not to be possible.
Some time after I wrote, Helen King’s paper explaining her motion was published (GS 2455A) along with a paper from the Secretary General (GS 2455B). The latter concluded with this summary:
the passage of this motion would express the view of this Synod but would not effect any change to doctrine, law or teaching. However, it could introduce some ambiguity and confusion, with potential implications for practice.
Perhaps because of this strong warning there were two amendments put before Synod of the most comprehensive form possible (“Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert…). A third amendment seeking to add “lamenting the way divisions over sexuality have wounded the church and undermined its mission” to the original motion was not called.
The First Amendment (Item 53)
The LLF Programme Board, in one of its final acts before it is dissolved, worked hard to find possible wording that might get consensus. This resulted in an amendment introduced by the Chair of the House of Laity who serves on the Board, Jamie Harrison. It sought to refocus the motion way from a divisive statement of a particular viewpoint into a statement offering a summary of the current state-of-play as the Synod drew to a close. It did so by first recognising where the CofE now finds itself:
- that the Prayers of Love and Faith have been commended for use in regular services as a way of offering public affirmation and recognition of the goods which are to be found in same sex relationships;
- that the teaching of the Church of England provides that sexual intimacy properly belongs within marriage.
The Synod was not asked to support these two positions but simply to recognise them. This is because the reality of course is that very few people seem to support both of them. Just over half the Synod supports (i) but most of those who do so do not support (ii) while most of those who support (ii) have opposed the development of (i). This tension is one of the central unresolved issues as we head into elections for the new Synod.
The amendment then sought to place the substantive motion into wording which asked Synod to recognise it within a mapping of views found within the Church of England and General Synod. It did so by drawing on wording taken from the Statement by the House of Bishops prior to the previous Synod (GS 2426, para 6)
- that many in the Church of England and within this General 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;
- that many others, even after long and thoughtful study remain uncertain, and
- still others believe that such relationships run counter to the message of scripture and the Christian tradition.
Finally, it asked Synod to reaffirm its February decision highlighting both these specific differences and the work of pastoral reassurance:
commend the work of the Relationships Sexuality and Gender Working Group as set out in GS 2426 in exploring these matters further, including pastoral reassurance, in order to report back with recommendations to the Synod within the first two years of the new quinquennium.
This amendment appeared to have the support of most conservative members of Synod concerned about the implications of the King motion but not of those supporting the PMM who had their own amendment they preferred. After a short debate, in a vote by Houses, only the bishops supported this amendment replacing the original motion (Bishops 17 for, 7 against, with 6 abstentions; Clergy 78-90-4; Laity 88-93-1) and so Synod turned to what was now clearly the revised PMM sought by those who had originally supported Helen King’s motion.
The Second Amendment (Item 54)
As Helen King has explained, she saw this as a response to the conservative dislike of the language of “no fundamental objections” (which alluded to the 1975 motion which paved the way for women priests in 1992):
I heard the concern, and in the time between submitting the motion and coming to the debate, several of us worked on trying to address it. Should we spell out the presence in the church of other views? By the time amendments had to be put in, we had come up with an amended form of the motion which we thought addressed this, and more. So that was submitted by Chris Dalliston, the Dean of Peterborough, appearing as item 54 on the agenda.
She describes this as “basic pastoral message, plus recognition that there are other views within the C of E” and clearly hoped that this reframing would respond to concerns although it does not appear that any of those whose objections were being considered were brought into the framing of the new amendment. The rewording opened with words lifted from clause (c) of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10 generally disliked by King and others because of its clear conservative position on marriage and sexual ethics:
That this Synod:
(a) affirms that all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ;
It then added that Synod
(b) delights in the lives and ministries of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England;
before turning to the crucial addition concerning diversity of views:
(c) recognises a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England, on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, and;
(d) recognises that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry.
After debating whether this should replace the original wording, Synod agreed in all 3 Houses that it should do so (B 12-8-8, C 100-68-4, L 102-76-4). It seemed clear from this that most of Synod preferred this motion to the original King wording. But someone preferring this to the original (and so wishing for it to be the final motion) does not mean that they would necessarily vote for it: it might be seen simply as “the lesser evil”.
And so, after some more debate, it proved. The votes were tighter in all 3 Houses with crucially the bishops defeating the motion as amended (B 11-14-4, C 93-79-0, L 101-83-0). It will be interesting to review the voting records of members on these two votes when they are published shortly but, for the reason given above, the outcome should not be “very baffling” in the way that it was for Helen King and perhaps others disappointed by the outcome: the voting was not “replicated” on “exactly the same words” because one vote was to amend an existing motion and the other was to support a motion and these are two significantly different questions to ask of the same wording.
Why did the amended motion fail? The bishops
The simple answer as to why the motion as amended fell is that the House of Bishops defeated it. If the 4 bishops who abstained (notably no clergy or laity did) had voted for it then it would have passed (15-14) and if the vote had not been by Houses but by the whole Synod it would have passed (205-176-4 so 53.8% to 46.2%, slightly larger majority than recent votes on PLF matters).
It is easy to miss what a sea-change in voting within the episcopacy this represents compared to the beginning of the Prayers of Love and Faith process back in early 2023. Then only 4 bishops (two of whom who are no longer in the House) voted against the motion calling for the prayers to be commended (at that point including for what are now called standalone or bespoke services where they are not currently commended, and also for heterosexual couples). Only 2 bishops (only 1 of them still in the House) abstained. Now we have 18 bishops voting against or abstaining.
The paper from the bishops introducing the prayers back in January 2023 (GS 2289) opened by saying
Bishops joyfully affirm, and want to acknowledge in church, stable, committed relationships between two people – including same-sex relationships.
Later they stated
Amid our differences as bishops, we know of many committed same-sex relationships between followers of Christ. We see their faithfulness to one another and the fruit of their discipleship and service. We want to find ways of affirming same-sex couples – inside and outside the church – while committing ourselves to respecting the disagreement, in conscience, of those who believe this compromises the Church’s inherited tradition and teaching.
It is hard to see how this is not effectively saying that “committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships” can legitimately be recognised as entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry. The Archbishop of York famously went even further, stating on BBC Radio 4 on 22nd January that,
what we are saying is that physical and sexual intimacy belongs in committed, stable, faithful relationships and therefore where we see a committed, stable, faithful relationship between two people of the same sex, we are now in a position where those people can be welcomed fully into the life of the Church, on their terms.
It is interesting to consider what has changed such that the bishops now defeated this motion. There are multiple factors at play and (particularly before the voting lists are published) it is difficult to be more specific about many of them or the significance of each but the following would appear to be possible elements:
- There has been a significant turnover of bishops – has this made the House more theologically conservative overall and if so what are the implications of this?
- There has been a change of Archbishop of Canterbury with the loss of Justin Welby who was very strongly pushing for change.
- In contrast to early 2023, both Archbishops this time were notable for failing to give a clear public lead (unlike their contributions on some other divisive debates at Synod).
- Many bishops over time, some quickly and some more slowly, began to recognise both that there were significant problems with the PLF proposal they had not initially recognised and that it was also much more divisive than they realised.
- The opposition to PLF, focussed around the Alliance and various networks within it, has shown how widespread unhappiness has been with what has happened and how it has happened.
- It was clear that passing the original PMM, and most likely the amended version, would be seen as a significant step by many in the Alliance that would further impair communion in much of the CofE, hence their support for the first amendment from the Programme Board.
- The group of bishops unhappy with the proposals, and certainly with any move to clergy in same-sex marriage, has always been wider than the 4 who voted against and it has grown in size and become much more connected and effective over the last three years.
- The 2023 motion as amended reaffirmed the Church’s teaching and some may have concluded that this July 2026 motion as amended not only failed to do this but actively undermined that teaching (see below).
- There has been a widespread recognition that the PLF process was far from ideal and many may have felt a short, hurried debate on a PMM at the very end of this Synod was similarly poor process to address such important matters touching on church doctrine and the breadth of theological legitimacy. Many bishops, aware of their particular episcopal responsibility to guard doctrine, may have felt this best left for more informed debate among themselves as bishops and then in the new Synod.
- The bishops have set up (with Synodical support only in February) the process outlined in the first amendment and many bishops may have felt this was an attempt to over-ride that process or force it to follow a certain path.
But perhaps more important than seeking to understand the radically changed voting of bishops is seeking to understand the rationale behind those who opposed the amended motion which was likely the rationale of many of the bishops who helped defeat it.
Why did the amended motion fail? The substance
While the rewording was presented as an attempt to hear conservative concerns this sadly shows that there is still the need for better and greater listening as very few conservatives unhappy with the original wording would have been happy with the revised wording. It is important to understand why this is the case going forward if we are not to face yet more GroundHog Day moments in the new Synod.
Although for some it might possibly have been the unqualified and selective quotation from Lambeth I.10 in clause (a) or the undiscriminating delight of clause (b) these are unlikely to be the main problems. It is particularly unlikely that Helen King is right to conclude this is the case with the bishops:
Long day, lots to think about; not least that the bishops suddenly felt unable to support saying that “all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ”? I am guessing that this is their problem, as I cannot see that they would fail to agree that we have a range of views in the C of E. What message is this sending to those faithful queer people who are clergy and laity – and bishops! – in the C of E?
Conservatives do not wish to deny the status of “baptised, believing and faithful persons” as “members of the Body of Christ” (though of course there is debate as to what ways of life might make someone “unfaithful”) and as shown by a number of conservative speakers in the debate and the existence of groups like Living Out, conservatives have no problems delighting “in the lives and ministries of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England” and many can also delight in the lives and ministries of LGBTQIA+ people with whom they disagree theologically.
The difficulty with the motion as amended lies much more in the wording of clause (c) and can be summed up in the following three reasons.
First, to replace “no fundamental objection to” with “recognises a legitimate range” is not really making much difference: in what sense can one recognise the legitimacy of a theological view to which one has a fundamental theological objection? Nor does it therefore address substantially the concerns of most conservatives. Having worked with Helen and others on LLF over a number of years it is a cause of sadness and concern if this reality is still not recognised.
This is in many ways the hardest nut we have to crack: not our disagreement but our disagreement about the seriousness of our disagreement and hence the boundaries of what can be formally recognised as legitimate. In writing that “I cannot see that they [the bishops] would fail to agree that we have a range of views in the C of E” Helen King rather disingenuously fails to acknowledge the amendment was not simply noting that fact. It was seeking to declare the range of views to be legitimate. It was not simply descriptive (like the amendment from the Programme Board she resisted) but evaluative or normative. She must surely see that is significantly different and know that, frustrating as it is for her and others, it is a step too far for many.
I get that those who believe the church is wrong on marriage and sexual ethics struggle to understand this. But the reality is that many in the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion see this as an area where they cannot simply accept the theological legitimacy of some of the views with which they disagree.
Interestingly, the Anglican Consultative Council shortly before Synod met had amended its resolution on the proposals to address divisions in the Communion to acknowledge that “our present divisions in the Anglican Communion are partly caused by disagreements about the ‘one faith’” (see the helpful discussion and analysis of the ACC by Andrew Atherstone on Covenant). The 2017 work of FAOC in Communion and Disagreement, picked up in the LLF book (Chpt 11, pp. 230ff) and final session of the LLF course, and explored in more detail in the recent FAOC paper (GS Misc 1406, Section One) has consistently highlighted this question yet it seems many are still not really even acknowledging, let alone addressing, it.
Back in 2007 in the debate on another PMM (the papers relating to it – GS Misc 842A and 842B and the outcome of the debate are perhaps worth re-reading) this was at the heart of the disagreement when Mary Gilbert proposed a motion that began:
That this Synod acknowledge the diversity of opinion about homosexuality within the Church of England and that these divergent opinions come from honest and legitimate attempts to read the scriptures with integrity, understand the nature of homosexual orientation, and respect the patterns of holy living to which lesbian and gay Christians aspire; and, bearing in mind this diversity…
There is, I think, now much greater recognition that differences are “held in good conscience” and that is a significant positive development. But this is not the same as recognising the views one disagrees with as legitimate views: they can be held in good conscience by a conscience that is in error. This, as discussed below, is also a distinction and view held by some wishing change regarding either traditional teaching or other views held by traditionalists.
Secondly, the reason for this inability to recognise a view’s legitimacy is found by simply reading the two clauses of Lambeth I.10 either side of the clause that the amendment selectively quoted:
b. in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
d. while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture…..
A view which is “incompatible with Scripture” and which runs counter to what is held by the church as “the teaching of Scripture” (indisputably a wide and long even if now weakened ecclesial consensus, and (b) in Lambeth I.10 is still the teaching of the Church of England as the amendment from the Programme Board asked Synod to recognise) is one which most of those who hold conservative views will not be able to recognise as “legitimate”. This is due to their understanding of the authority of Scripture and Tradition.
In fact, the wider context of Lambeth I.10 highlights this underlying problem. It begins in clause (a) with “commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality”. But the problem faced in 1998 was that that report gave implicit (not even explicit) legitimacy to a wide range of views. It stated “We must confess that we are not of one mind about homosexuality. Our variety of understanding encompasses….” before setting out four views, noting the apparent majority but declaring “we are unable to reach a common mind on the scriptural, theological, historical and scientific questions that are raised”. The widespread unhappiness with this among conservatives is what then led to the much clearer statements in 1.10 quoted above but ignored by the proposed amendment to Synod.
This piece of political history also highlights why there is such strong resistance to attempts to legitimise a range of views on the basis that they are widely present and conscientiously held: this has been a step which when taken almost always leads to a change in the church’s official teaching and practice and many conservatives feeling alienated, often leaving the church, as a result.
In the past I have engaged with this approach in relation to the Church in Wales’ response to civil partnerships in 2005 and the changing position of Bishop James Jones, former Bishop of Liverpool as set out in a 2010 address. The sad reality is that what can appear as simply a reasonable toleration can be experienced by many as in practice a slippery-slope to a position where they would no longer be tolerated within the church (or at least within its leadership) and/or they feel unable to remain with theological integrity in the church.
Thirdly, the positive attempt to “spell out the presence in the church of other views” was, unfortunately, too limited and only increased the already concerning level of ambiguity present in the original wording. This was because it only stated one view explicitly ie Helen King’s own view (but interestingly with the addition of “and ministry” making the door to changing ordination discipline even more open if passed) as in the wording of the PMM (compare the first amendment setting out three different views above). In addition, it simply spoke of “a legitimate range of theological perspectives…on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships” with no attempt to define or offer a boundary to that range which was being granted legitimacy.
While I am cautious about “what about” arguments that bring in extreme examples, as I noted in my earlier critique there have been, and still are, advocates of “committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships” whose sexual ethic in relationship to such relationships is a long way from anything resembling a traditional sexual ethic in terms of exclusivity and lifelong covenantal promises. One prominent example here would be the 2008 Inaugural Boswell Lecture by leading New Testament scholar, Dale Martin (whose Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation is widely cited by those arguing for change). This offers “A Gay, Male, Christian Sexual Ethic”. His central argument is that “Sex is good and Christian when it is done in a way that embodies love appropriate for the relationship in which it occurs”. Leaving aside his more extreme acceptance of group sex and anonymous sex as moral options this is how he writes about “couples”:
I have friends who have been together for five or ten or twenty or thirty years and for whom sexual exclusivity has never been important to them. They’ve talked about it, usually many times, and they’ve decided that though they cherish a certain emotional exclusivity between themselves, mere sexual exclusivity is not important for them. They aren’t the jealous types, or at least not when it comes to sex. I know men who will get very upset if they feel that their partner is becoming too friendly with another man, and leaving themselves out too much; but those same men couldn’t care less whether their partner has sex with other men.
I have friends who were exclusive in their partnership with one another for some years, and then decided they wanted to bring other men into their sexual relationship. Some couples I know have completely “open” relationships. Others have a rule that neither of them should have sex without the other also included. And others have a rule that either may have sex outside the relationship, but they shouldn’t tell one another about it. Different couples have discovered, each in their own way, that “sex” just doesn’t mean the same thing in every occurrence. So they have devised different mechanisms to protect themselves and their relationship though not remaining sexually exclusive.
Is this wrong? I say, only if it is not done in love and if it ends up harming them. But I know too many cases in which such relationships have gone on for years, and for the life of me, I can’t see anyone being hurt by it. In fact, the sexual openness of the relationship, many men will tell you, is precisely what has helped keep their relationships permanent, solid, and loving. This may sound incredible to other people, especially straight people, and perhaps especially women. But I know it to be a fact.
It is not unreasonable, in the light of arguments such as these being advanced by some Christians, to be cautious at writing a blank cheque concerning recognition of “a legitimate range of theological perspectives…on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships” in the church.
But this concern is not simply one that is relevant to conservatives. It works both ways as evident from part of the context for the debate at Synod: a fringe meeting and public display from a strongly conservative perspective on matters of sexuality and advocating pastoral approaches which many would classify as conversion therapy. 82 members of the Synod (most of them original signatories of Helen King’s PMM) wrote to the Archbishops about this. Although they were clear that their purpose was not to “restrict legitimate theological debate” there is a strong sense that many of them would likely struggle to support a motion that recognised these views as being within “a legitimate range of theological perspectives”. This is because they were understood to be views amounting to a claim that “sibling members of Synod should be different people from those whom God created and called them to be”. Those objecting therefore found it “difficult to understand why the Church of England should provide not only a fringe platform, but also a continuing presence within the shared public spaces of General Synod, for an organisation whose title appears to place the identity of some sibling members of Synod under scrutiny”. There is clearly a concern that the meeting should have been judged to be something that was “contrary to the ethos of the Church of England, may adversely affect its reputation, or would be inconsistent with House of Bishops’ safeguarding practice”.
More widely, when traditional views are rejected—as they increasingly are—on the basis that they are contrary to love or justice or because they lead to spiritual abuse or deny the reality of God’s good creation in some of God’s image-bearers it is hard to see how such theological judgments can sit easily with still recognising those traditional views as within “a legitimate range of theological perspectives”. That in turn increases conservative concerns as it is feared that the “legitimate range” will narrow over time if in church and wider society traditional views are increasingly rejected by the majority.
Conclusion
We now await the election of a new General Synod and the bishops are committed to report back to it by late 2028. They formally have to explore both the possible introduction of new liturgies under Canon B2 (unlikely to secure 2/3 support in all 3 Houses unless there is a major shift in Synod membership after the elections) and the possible canonical processes (stated to only require a simple majority in all 3 Houses) were it to be desired to allow clergy to enter civil same-sex marriages.
In the light of this final debate in this Synod there are perhaps three other areas that it is particularly important to focus on early in the new process and in greater depth than has happened thus far and the experience with amending this motion suggests it is much better to address them together across our differences not simply try to respond to others’ concerns from within our own “tribe”.
Firstly, as I argued in my initial response to Helen King’s PMM, one of its strengths was that it recognised ánd brought to the fore that we are considering what patterns of faithful discipleship can be formally recognised and commended by the church. More work needs to be done here—building on the non-evaluative mapping in the earlier LLF process—to consider not only the range of theological positions that are present in the church on this question but which ones are “legitimate” theologically, and on what basis that legitimacy is recognised and how one responds when someone cannot recognise a view as legitimate.
Secondly, unless something almost miraculous happens, there will remain deep divisions over where those boundaries of legitimacy are to be drawn and over the implications for church teaching and discipline of drawing them in different places. Related to this are the questions noted above concerning our disagreement about the level of disagreement that we are having to navigate. Here the recent FAOC work must not be forgotten and in particular the implications need to be considered of its strong and clear statement (GS Misc 1406, paper 1, para 139), that
it is a failure of Christian love for one side to declare what kind of disagreement is being experienced by the other. It must surely be the case that those who disagree with a given decision are themselves determinative of what kind of disagreement is in view, not the content majority. Those who dissent from the majority view or decision get to define the nature of their disagreement: if it is widely held that such-and-such a belief or practice calls into question apostolic communion or ecclesial communion, then the disagreement simply is a first- or second-order disagreement, regardless of whether the majority think it merely strains communion (third order).
This is the deeper problem with the approach of the amendment: it appears that those who conscientiously have come to a position which represents a rejection or expansion or development of traditional teaching seem to be demanding that those who are not convinced by their arguments should nevertheless accept that their view is now within a “legitimate range of theological perspectives” and/or that if a majority can be shown to hold this view as to what is legitimate then church practice needs to adapt to embrace the full range of perspectives. There is an attempt to jump from acknowledgment of an indisputable pluralism in reality (a range of views clearly exists) to a pluralism that recognises that range of views as acceptable, indeed, legitimate.
Thirdly, as noted in the first proposed amendment, part of the remit of the new group set up by the bishops is “pastoral reassurance”. This points to the fact that our disagreements over the previous two areas are such that some form of ecclesial reconfiguration will most likely prove to be necessary if any way is to be found, within the Church of England, for opposing views to be able to be officially approved and for the opposing sides in votes such as that this week in Synod, to be able to co-exist well, even flourish. This might be understood as institutionally enabling some recognised form of principled pluralism that comes to terms with both the pluralist reality and the impossibility of sufficiently widespread acceptance of that pluralism being formally accepted as legitimate within the current episcopal and synodical structures.
It was the refusal of the bishops to seriously address these matters of “pastoral reassurance” or “good differentiation” that in large part contributed to the winding up of the LLF/PLF process. We could continue with a “head in the sand” refusal to grapple with the ecclesiological implications of our deep disagreements about discipleship and about the legitimate range of discipleship options the Church of England can recognise and bless. The experience of this last, short debate in this recent Synod is, however, a further pointer to the fact that if we do not face this question head-on and with honesty and theological rigour early in the new Synod then, barring a sea-change one way or the other in the election results, and perhaps also now in the House of Bishops, we are simply preparing for continued unresolvable conflict and pain in the next five years.
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).
Buy me a Coffee
There are some slippery people in the CoE. Those 2 professors knew full well what they were trying to do. The original motion was clear and rightly rejected. The amendment was less clear but used clever wording to do the same thing. The whole issue is about theological positions. I’m glad the majority of bishops voted it down, but a shame the other 2 houses didn’t do the same.
“Let your Yes be simply Yes, and your No be simply No; anything more than that comes from the evil one.”
Matthew 5.37
Professor King was playing a political game of ambiguity and imprecision. That is unworthy in an academic, whose primary calling is the search for truth (not power), and it is inexcusable in a Christian, who is called to absolute fidelity to the words of Christ and the commands of Scripture.
That sums it up perfectly.
Though note that it would already sim it up perfectly if the object were merely to identify an instance of deliberate equivocation or obfuscation.
The present case is much worse still, because it involves sneaking in something wrong and harmful rather than something moral- so, a simultaneous deficit in both honesty and overall moral level/framework.
I urge all members of the ‘gay Christian’ movement to reflect on their exchange with God on the day of judgement. What will be said, and why?
What is the point? Whatever is said or done it is then waffled over until the whole original 2 sides of what is right or wrong is bleneded and mixed in the NICENESS liquidizer of sophistry so that its all just a blur. Is marriage exclusively between one man & one woman or no? Plese give me a clear, unequivocal yes or no. Declare your colours!
Yes it is. That is the doctrine of the Church of England according to the teaching of Jesus as set out in Canon C30. The Archbishop of Canterbury confirmed that in public statements to Synod, and last week the archbishop of York confirmed that every bishop must uphold and teach every doctrine of the Church, including this one.
OK?
Clear enough!
Vaughan Roberts’ impassioned plea to the Bishops, Helen Lamb’s emotional but insightful words and the heart-breaking words of Laura Oliver on Monday morning reinforce much of Andrew’s full analysis of the situation. Is it too much to hope that finally the Bishops – if not the rest of Synod – are finally waking up to the realities of where their misguidance has led us?
I think they are—but slowly…
They shoujld be leading, not following. They are not merely useless, they are worse than useless, far worse.
“Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” – James 3:1.
The bishops saved the day – who would have thought it?
A google search says that since January 2023, the Church of England has appointed 19 new diocesan bishops. I don’t know if that is accurate, but episcopal turnover must be significant.
But deeply revealling that both clergy and laity vote for a motion which talks about ‘LGBTQIA+ people’ – for the acronymn names an ideology, and ideology should have no place in the church because we are supposed to have our own belief system variously called ‘the gospel’ or ‘the kingdom of God’ or more simply ‘Jesus’.
No Christian with issues over sexuality (most Christians at some time or other?) should find the church discussing them in categories defined by secular ideology. It is lazy, divisive, and utterly repugnant to the gospel.
Well, perhaps more accurate to say the bishops finally deserved to reverse out of the quagmire that they themselves drove us into…?
“LGBTQIA+ people” do not exist. That illogical initialism was fabricated to give the impression that all the disparate groups denoted by that collection of letters constitute a single category of persons. They do not. It is high time that it was permanently jettisoned.
Mmmm…the bishops only saved the day to which they (inexcusably) led the church in the first place
And again – the problem is in the presentation of ‘gay’ as something people ‘ARE’ in the same kind of sense that they ‘ARE’ of different ethnicities. In fact the issue is very much about things people DO – ie that they express same-sex love by sexual acts. And while people have indeed no choice about African black skin or Oriental yellow/brown skin, or things like eye colour, sexual acts are definitely CHOSEN; or if they aren’t, there is definitely a sanity problem…. And this simple fact puts LGB in a different moral category to ethnicity or eye and hair colour issues.
Insofar as there is a ‘being’ aspect it is not about simple neutral stuff like blue eyes. It is about the much more ambivalent business of people having the ‘urges and desires’ to do what they do. And as soon as you open up the debate to wider than just sexuality it becomes obvious that ‘urges and desires’ are a very different thing to skin colour and the like. People do in fact have all kinds of ‘urges and desires’ – not just to do sex but to steal, to lie, to assault and even kill, and so on. And no matter how irresistible those urges and desires may be, just having them does not automatically make them right – if it did, moral discussion would become impossible.
IF LGB were indeed the same kind of thing as ethnicity or hair colour and the like, it would of course be very wrong to object to it, it would be as sinful as racism. But because it is in this different area of things people DO and (unless abnormal) CHOOSE TO DO, the whole issue is at the very least open to legitimate discussion and disagreement. In that discussion it is perfectly reasonable for Christians to say that according to the Bible God has created sexuality as a matter for males with females, and that the attempt at ‘sex’ between people of the same sex is inappropriate, that the urges and desires to DO those sexual acts are disorderly and sinful.
In terms of where I currently physically am, I have to pause at this point and resume the discussion later today. One of the things I will then raise is the particular difficulty of Anglicanism as an ‘established’ religion with a history of totalitarian coercion of those who disagree with it; that history distorts perceptions of these issues….
Thank you, Stephen, for this very well argued post.
Yet the only Anglican churches that now perform same sex marriages ie the US and Scottish Anglican churches, are non established Anglican churches
Church in Wales does not yet perform same-sex marriages but does bless them.
As I understand it the Church of England is actually the ONLY established/state-entangled Anglican Church.
The relevance of the CofE’s estblishment to the sexuality debate is partly about a history in which the unbiblically established church unbiblically criminalised homosexuality among other dissenting practices, and partly the current incongruity of a national church wildly out of tune with the nation it is supposedly the church of….
Homosexuality was illegal in every Roman Catholic nation and every Protestant majority nation, certainly amongst men, as well as almost all Muslim majority and Hindu majority nations until 1791 when France first legalised it after the Revolution. Only a handful of central African and Far Eastern nations and South Korea never criminalised it. The only Most other nations didn’t legalise same sex relations until the 20th century, it had nothing to do with the C of E being established church. Nor does the C of E still not performing same sex marriages but only PLF have much to do with it either
The established church did not criminalise homosexuality. Homosexual acts were criminalised by Parliament – first the Buggery Act in 1533 and then the Labouchere amendment in 1885. The Buggery Act was actually part of the takeover of the Church in England by the Henrician state. Labouchere was a radical politician and no friend of the Church of England.
Good points
One of the problems with church/state entanglement is that for example the state may criminalise something but the church is still involved…
The Orthodox Church in Russia. Yet arguably has far more influence over Putin’s Russia and support for its actions than the established C of E has for the UK government. Diehard supporters of the established church like me however are committed to its vital role in Parish ministry in every city, town and still most villages in the land and always will be
The Orthodox Church in Russia is not established
I agree it is about what people choose to do, but sexuality itself is about who you are sexually attracted to, regardless of whether or not you act on those attractions. So a celibate individual can be straight or gay. There is some evidence sexuality may be influenced by genetics and/or hormones etc as well as early experiences, so one has to be careful when it comes to not having a ‘choice’.
I don’t think you realise quite how big a distinction is made when one realises that legally and morally gayness is about urges and desires which underlie chosen actions, rather than the much simpler kind of ‘being so’ which is implied in the gay propaganda that it is the same kind of issue as ethnicity or thmgs like hair colour. Not to mention when one considers moral issues on a wider front rather than treating sexuality as a narrow special case.
Ask yourself – if we were considering other sins such as theft and lying, would you accept that such sins could be made valid and legitimate simply because people felt ‘urges and desires’ to do those things? And within the sexuality argument note that most gays would reject the idea that sex with children could be validated by the person concerned feeling the urges and desires to do that.
As Paul explains in Romans 1, sin puts humans out of joint with God, out of joint with each other, out of joint with the world we live in, and even out of joint within ourselves so that we become ‘captive’ to sin, ‘in bondage’ to our worse urges. Our ‘choice’ is indeed compromised – but in a way that at the same time shows that this is an evi, a disorder in the world from which we need to be freed.
I am so pleased that God has provided good and wise academics to argue and stand up for his truth in the General Synod ; it was hard enough for me to follow the debate. Taken at face value…what was Helen King getting at ? Obviously to make same sex (and sexual)relationships acceptable to the C of E via the back door. As a simple ordinary Christian, God’s word is clear to me ,that it says in both Old and New Testaments ,that homosexual practices (and I emphasis the latter…not the temptation) are forbidden. No one has yet mentioned the very last words of warning in Revelation 22 v 18 & 19. We will all be accountable to God.
Helen King was being deliberately ambiguous, and asking a question along the lines of ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’
By confusing all forms of intimacy (sexual and nonsexual) together, she was trying to force Synod’s hand into either affirming same-sex marriage, or appearing not to support friendship.
But her trick has backfired.
This deliberate use of ambiguity by an academic was dishonest and unworthy of Christian discourse. If any of her students had used such ambiguity in their essays, I hope she would have put a big red ring around it.
If the Bishops cannot affirm that LGBTIQA+ people have a place in the Church (note, not a welcome, a place, since they are already here), then they are reneging on the teaching of Issues in Human Sexuality (an otherwise shabby little document) and the fulsome apology for the church’s treatment of its queer members issued by Synod on behalf of the CoE quite recently. Since one should only obey bishops in all things lawful, and since discrimination against our queer siblings is unlawful (and unchristian) I have no option but to disobey every bishop who voted against this motion, or who abstained. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and I hope they will refrain from the empty rhetoric of pastoral gestures in the future. Empty vessels indeed!
Penelope – I’m a Christian and I don’t seem to *have a place* in any church – so I don’t see why this should be guaranteed in any sense. In my case, when I was young and single, I would have taken the view that I had a duty to join up with some fellowship, even if the experience was worse than pulling teeth. Now I have a son who has aspergers and there are certain things that he really can’t take (e.g. music from a music group that contains drums and guitars – which seems to characterise the music of all the ‘evangelical’ churches in this area – we had to pull him out of the ‘ear training’ classes at his music school when the teacher played them some pop music to illustrate that music had a beat – he put his hands over his ears and simply couldn’t take it) – so the gloves have come off and I refuse point blank to have anything to do with anything wiggy that he’ll have a problem with.
I no longer consider it to be a fundamental right for a Christian to *have a place* in some church. While it’s not ideal, there is always the Holy Spirit living within the heart and mind of a believer, which gives the believer the necessary steel to see the situation through with the ‘joy unspeakable’ described in Scripture that comes through belief. I don’t *have a place* in any church – why should this be guaranteed for anybody else?
Hi jock, are there no churches that use the traditional organ is some services which perhaps your son would be ok with?
Peter – short answer is no – we don’t live in the UK and the situation is not like the UK. I have put careful thought and research into this. Important point for this thread – if you are a Christian and find yourself un-churched, then the Holy Spirit does work within you so that you approach life with the ‘joy unspeakable’ that Scripture describes. So, while it is disappointing if you don’t ‘have a place’ in the Church (as Penny put it), you can rely on the Holy Spirit. And not every Christian is guaranteed to have a place in the church.
I am sorry to hear that Jock. I can understand your son’s distress and hope that you find somewhere where he is comfortable with the liturgy and worship.
I don’t claim that I’m guaranteed a place in any church – though a liberal catholic church is usually just fine for me (especially if it’s fairly up the candle). I simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of some bishops. I don’t suppose that will cause them any sleepless nights, but it assuages my righteous anger 🙂
Penelope – well, on the topic of the thread, King James VI and I seemed to have a pretty good place in the Church (in fact, he was head of it). I got my account of his life and times from Alan Massie’s book ‘The Royal Stuarts’. His sexuality and what he did about it seems to have been well known (c/f Jesuit-and-pot-of-gold). A.M. also seems to think that he was an intellectual and an active participant in the King James bible translation.
Penny, you are not stupid. You know very well that both the original motion and the amended one both tied together and mixed up friendship and sexual relationships.
Asking us to vote on the two bundled together like this forced the bishops’ hand, and made them vote against the second.
You now falsely claim that this means they must have voted against the first.
It is this kind of dishonest manipulation that Andrew says really needs to end. And he is right.
The same kind of dishonest manipulation that you pulled in the Palestine debate when you made an appeal to the safety of gays and women in Israel, Ian?
You are the master of it.
I made no appeal. I pointed out facts: Israel is the only liberal democracy in the region.
No, I’m not stupid and I have read Issues in Human Sexuality. Helen’s motion was in line with that document’s ‘teaching”. I thought Issues was going to be replaced with something more theologically sophisticated, not less. Which is what the bishops’ decision might suggest.
In simply mixing up every kind of sexual and non-sexual intimacy?
Hardly.
The irony is that this has happened at precisely the time when it slipping into being an irrelevant question. I was listening to a discussion between Catholic theologian James Alison and commentator Chris Damian, who remarked that (admittedly talking about the Catholic Church in the US but I think it applies here as well) that young people, including young gay people, don’t ask whether there is a place in the Church as they believe they do. What matters is how we are to live our lives creatively and fruitfully in the Church, and that’s a very different question.
The King motion ultimately failed as for the Bishops PLF settled the matter of C of E doctrine on same sex relationships. Nothing short of a 2/3 majority for liberals or conservatives in the next Synod elections is worth reopening discussion of it again.
In terms of the Harrison motion Dr Goddard states ‘It did so by first recognising where the CofE now finds itself:
that the Prayers of Love and Faith have been commended for use in regular services as a way of offering public affirmation and recognition of the goods which are to be found in same sex relationships;
that the teaching of the Church of England provides that sexual intimacy properly belongs within marriage.
The Synod was not asked to support these two positions but simply to recognise them. This is because the reality of course is that very few people seem to support both of them. Just over half the Synod supports (i) but most of those who do so do not support (ii) while most of those who support (ii) have opposed the development of (i). This tension is one of the central unresolved issues as we head into elections for the new Synod.’
Yet many liberals who want to recognise same sex relationships believe that sexual intimacy still belongs in marriage, just including same sex marriage. Some conservatives who want to reserve marriage still for one man and one woman only by contrast are nonetheless willing to continue to back some recognition for same sex relationships via PLF
I would suggest ‘some conservatives’ is a very small minority. The majority do not view same sex sexual relationships of any kind as good.
Though conservatives who refuse to recognise any kind of same sex relationship are clearly not a majority of Synod otherwise PLF would never have passed
Nicene Christians were once not a majority in the Church either. Are you secretly an Arian, Simon?
‘PLF settled the matter of C of E doctrine on same sex relationships.’
Simon, absolute tosh. PLF can only be used where they are not indicative of any change of doctrine. That is what has been established. I am not sure why you find that hard to grasp.
PLF can be used making use of the suggested prayers in the C of E PLF resources within services. The recognition of the same sex couples comes via those prayers
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/prayers-of-love-and-faith.pdf
” and the possible canonical processes (stated to only require a simple majority in all 3 Houses) were it to be desired to allow clergy to enter civil same-sex marriages.”
This I find quite disturbing – how can it only take a simple majority to overturn doctrine? Which this clearly would do so, as it would otherwise allow ministers to live outside Canon B30 whilst still being required to explain “Church’s doctrine of marriage as herein set forth”, which really makes a mockery of the requirement. It would also contravene our liturgy, as set forth in the ordinal, namely: “Will you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ?”
It would make a mockery of the church, in other words, and be deeply dishonest. Who is so certian it just needs a majority?
‘how can it only take a simple majority to overturn doctrine?’ It cannot.
That is true of the Synodical process at a technical level, but this cannot happen without a change in liturgy to go with it, and that requires 2/3.
And it would also need a wholesale revision of Canon law as well.
It wouldn’t require a change in liturgy, as clergy could only get same sex married in civil ceremonies in registry offices or hotels etc. They could still only get PLF within a church service, not a same sex marriage
It would require a change to the ordination vows Simon, “Will you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ”. If the doctrine is unchanged (Canon B30 “Church’s doctrine of marriage as herein set forth”) which the bishops keep assuring us will be the case, these two things would not be consonant with civil marriages (which the D&F committee has already acknowledged is considered as valid as marriage in church), PLF has nothing to do with it.
How the doctrine of Christ is interpreted is down to Synod. Otherwise clergy would never be able to divorce and remarry unless their spouse had committed adultery as Jesus forbade it. Divorcees can already get married in C of E churches, clergy wouldn’t even be able to get a same sex marriage in church, just prayers in a service after a civil ceremony
Simon,
That doesn’t hold up.
Synod is not there to reinterpret the doctrine of Christ at will. The doctrine of the Church of England is received in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal (Canon A5). Synod can legislate, but it has never changed the formularies on marriage. Canon B30 stands as it is.
The Ordination vow requires clergy to frame their own lives and families “according to the doctrine of Christ” and to be wholesome examples to the flock. A same-sex civil marriage (which the Church recognises as a valid marriage) directly contradicts that doctrine. This is not the same as the carefully limited provision for remarriage after divorce.
Bishops and the Faith and Order Commission are meant to be guardians and teachers of the faith, not enablers of incoherence. Claiming “Synod interprets” just reduces doctrine to majority vote and makes a mockery of the vows clergy actually take.
Jesus forbids divorce outright in Mark and only on grounds of sexual immorality in Matthew. So allowing divorcees to get remarried is directly contracting the doctrine of Christ, yet some C of E churches now remarry even where no sexual immorality involved. The Roman Catholic Church by contrast does not remarry divorcees except with a strict annulment.
Allowing C of E clergy who are same sex married in civil law but still not allowing same sex marriages in church is certainly therefore no more a breach of Christ’s doctrine than remarrying divorcees. Indeed arguably less so
Ambiguity comes because the Church of England still uses euphemistic bowdlerisations from the Victorian era. It is time to use the medical descriptions of what goes on. Or the descriptive phrases in Leviticus.
While I studied and practiced, Family Law at a time before Civil Partnerships, where marriage at law was only ever between a man and a woman, the law defined consummation, which required specific male and female body parts, beyond the requirements for a valid legal ceremony. Otherwise the marriage was voidable, and if voided, there was no valid marriage. And it was a legal process that the church would recognise as it was not a divorce. The church could then allow a second marriage ceremony, which wouldn’t happen with a divorced person.
Which is why all this talk about “equal marriage” makes no sense – because it is impossible to consummate a marriage of persons of the same sex.
This was obvious in an age when natural law was understood.
It also explains why Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne of Cleves was voided.
It wasn’t divorce – in fact, Henry was never divorced, as I used to teach classes.
Despite the old mnemonic.
Why is consummation such a big deal?
Because it’s what becoming ‘one flesh’ entails.
Marriage is not friendship. It is the union of a man and a woman.
And James, it is fundamentally and essentially the epitome, the expression and joinder, a filling-full of biological complementariamism, becoming one.
And it is not pruerile to emphasise the legal requirement for full penetration as consummation of m+f marriage to validate a legally constituted ceremony.
Geoff,
Agreed. It is the meaning of natural law, that fundamental principle of theology too many Anglicans have forgotten- or never knew.
When nature is despised, the human will is enthroned in its place.
Which is where liberal theology has ended up, spurning the doctrine of creation.
This is an interesting instance of how same-sex marriage is different from other sex marriage: it is not voidable on grounds of non-consummation.
If a woman marries a man and is then found to be pregnant by another man, that marriage is also voidable. I’m not sure how this works for same-sex marriages. If a woman marries another woman and one of them is found to be pregnant (obviously not by her spouse) is the marriage voidable?
I would remark that these provisions for a marriage to be voidable show that marriage law used to be based on the foundation that marriage between a man and a woman was the context for procreation.
Yes, indeed David, and more than merely a legal ceremony, with m + f sexual ‘intercourse’ being ‘unavoidably’ essential.
Lesbian couples can and often do have children via sperm donors now of course
their ‘marriage’ is still not consummated.
Biological adultery.
I understand that there were discussions among civil servants in the Home Office about how to define comsummation of a homosexual relationship when the State in its infinite wisdom decided to recognise gay marriage and was drafting the necessary legislation. O for the minutes!
You ought to read the Vatican’s definition. It gives the precise number of inches. Hilarious.
The relevant canon, no.1061, says nothing of the sort. On the Vatican’s own website the marriage is said to have been consummated “if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.”
Like I said – one-flesh union of husband and wife, following natural law and the command of Scripture.
Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church:
“Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.”
Penny should check sources before putting finger to keyboard.
It is possible she was quoting a definition from past centuries – although presumably post-Trentian, which is when everything got written down. Penelope, your reference please.
For consummation of marriage of a man and a woman the law required the intimacy of full penetration.
Another reason why we must reject the false rhetoric of “equal marriage”.
“Equal” means the same.
In maths, 5 + 7 = 6 + 6 because 5 + 7 means (1+1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1+1+1+1) which equals 12 – it doesn’t matter where you put the parentheses.
But the expression “equal marriage” makes no sense, because the marriage of a man and woman is NOT the same as the “marriage” of two persons of the same sex.
A law may *claim this – just as the US Constitutional Compromise of 1787 defined a Negro slave as three fifths of a white or free black person for representation purposes – but human law and rhetoric don’t change facts established by the God of creation.
We must stop using the devil’s language of “Equal Marriage”.
Yes, James, and we must not accept the terminology of ‘discrimination’, which is applicable only when two things that are the same get treated differently.
As I used to tell classes, ‘discrimination’ just means ‘making a distinction’. In popular usage it carries an implicit ‘unfair’, which raises the question, ‘In what way is it unfair?’
All my students agreed that treating everyone fairly or justly didn’t mean everyone got an automatic pass.
But that was a while ago. Today education is a commodity you pay for (or don’t).
So we are now in a position where the Church of England accepts the legitimacy of a wide range of views on sexuality and gender. At least that is the official stance of General Synod. Yet at the same time Bernard Randall has only just won his gruelling seven year battle to be reinstated; a fringe event on the subject of conversion therapy attracted widespread furore. So there seems to be this contradiction: yes, there are a wide range of views but expressing the currently accepted doctrine of the Church of England runs the danger of being labelled a safeguarding risk.
I am not sure how you deduce that? Overall, Synod voted against this.
But yes, there is a wide range of views in Synod. fortunately, the vagaries of Synod do not determine ‘what the Church of England believes’. That is sound in canon law and liturgy, and from Canon B30 we learn that marriage is, ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’ between one man and one woman.
Or putting this another way Peter: Simon appears not reflect too clearly on the use of the verb “have” in this context.
I’ve waited until we got the voting breakdown to comment. It makes for interesting reading:
Abp Mullaly was a consistent vote against (against the amendment and against the motion itself). In that she was followed by bishops Volland, Williams, Duff, Race, Gibbs, and Saner-Haigh. Abp Cottrell was uniquely against the amendment and then for the motion itself. There was a clutch of bishops who abstained and then voted against: North, Jackson, Simpson, and Sellin. And then there were those who were for the amendment, but then voted it down as the motion: Mountstephen, Wilcox, and Innes.
For completeness those who abstained on both were Treweek, Ipgrave, Springett, and Beasley. Those who voted for both were: Francis-Dehqani, Chessun, Frost, Harrison, Grenfell, Conalty, Gorick, Gorham, and Arora. Hudson-Wilkie didn’t vote at all on the amendment, but did vote for the motion.
I can understand the frustration and bewilderment of the likes of Helen King. What were the bishops objections to the final amended motion. It no longer had anything as definitive as saying we thought there were no fundamental objections. Rather than was now something which some affirmed and some rejected – sounds pretty factual. It said there were a legitimate range of theological perspectives. Hard to see why the bishops would object – as Bishop Wilcox was keen to stress, the PLF were still commended, and they can’t be commending prayers for a perspective that they believe is illegitimate, surely. The problem is unlikely to be the use of “LGBTQIA+ people”. This hasn’t been something that’s divided us (although it irritates folk like me): indeed, those who most often make reference to being an “LGBT person” tend to come from the conservative side of the aisle (see Rev Paul Chamberlain’s article on here for example). So we’re left to conclude the bishops aren’t keen on delighting in those lives and ministries, or (worse?) they’re not sure you can be full members of the Body of Christ regardless of sexual orientation.
Voting for this amendment only to then immediately vote it down raises a lot of serious questions. Now that Issues in Human Sexuality has been done away with, and following this vote, the bishops have a task to clarify their position and so does Synod. The conservative voices had an opportunity to amend to clear up deficiencies (e.g. if they wanted to be specific about what “intimate” meant here). They declined to do so. That was a pity, but that is on them.
Thanks for the analysis.
What those bishops voting against, along with others, objected to was the implication that your view of the doctrine of marriage was a ‘thing indifferent’, and that there were many ‘legitimate’ views. The reason for that is that, as has been reiterated by both archbishops in answers to question, there is one doctrine of marriage in the Church, and all clergy commit to upholding it.
The amendment was again a slippery way to avoid that.
I think there are important things to learn from this motion and what happened to it. The original intent of the motion was good: get us back to making positive statements. Whether the original motion was going to be a positive statement that would pass Synod is less clear, but that is a good place to be. I think a massive mistake was made in being open to the amendment – the amendment the purpose of the motion. It went from being an attempt at saying something, to being a recording of disagreement. Instead of being Synod agrees XYZ, it was “some people think this, and some people think that, and views vary etc.”. That is factual, but it isn’t helpful. It doesn’t foster unity, it records disunity. It doesn’t build trust, it sows mistrust (because inevitably someone else is trying to describe your views, and may well not do it brilliantly, or you get offended that other people’s views are being described but not yours etc.). And in this particular case the bishops, and the likes of Vaughan Roberts who egged them on, have placed a great big question mark over what they really think now that Issues in Human Sexuality has been done away with.
Gay people, particularly of my generation and younger (i.e. the under-45s) do not need statements of welcome. We’re here. We’ve been here for years. We particularly do not need meaningless welcome – i.e you’re ‘welcome’ but don’t mention you’re gay, in fact the word gay is banned, you should pray to change etc.. What we do need is what everyone needs: we need to be understood and we need to work out how we flourish and order our lives.
The demise of Issues in Human Sexuality, the vote on the King motion, and arrival on the fringe of Synod of an attempt to rehabilitate ex-gay ministry is concerning, but is also an opportunity for the Church and Synod if we choose to take it.
I would recommend that the next Synod take time to build up teaching, and test the degree of consensus. Some people will be irked (because their positions may have a lot less support than they’d like) but we won’t get far starting with the most divisive issues. We do now need to confirm some of the basics:
– What is sexuality? Do people have a sexual orientation? Are some people exclusively or predominently homosexual in their orientation?
– Do we agree that orientations cannot be changed, and we do not encourage or advise people to try to change? Is your sexuality something to be changed and repressed, or integrated?
– If integrity is important, what does that mean for people in the Church being open about their sexuality and what does that mean for its role in their life, what it means to be chaste etc.?
– What are singleness, chastity, and celibacy and how do they differ? Do we still think that celibacy has to be a free choice and not something that can be prescribed for someone?
– What do people who choose celibacy need to flourish, and how can the Church support them?
– How should those who are in same-sex relationships and then come to faith deal with that? What is our expectation?
That would be a start. It can probably be better organised that I can manage quickly typing up on a Tuesday night, and we’d need to move through it issue by issue. But I’d wager that there’s more consensus in the Church and Synod about these questions than most realise, and although some might think it’s too basic to matter, I think it’s hugely important. As a gay person in the Church having something that speaks to you and your situation as positive statements, and not just some say X and some say Y, matters.
Adam, I agree with you that there are good questions to be asked. But we have had the opportunity for 20 years, and in fact some of us have been talking about these things.
‘The original intent of the motion was good: get us back to making positive statements.’ No, the original intention was to by-pass due process by creating ambiguity and daring the bishops to disagree. They did.
Some of us may have been talking about these things, but as you and the bishops are apparently trying to say, not all views expressed are legitimate.
Not all views are legitimate expressions of the doctrine of the Church.
Again, I would just note the inherent ambiguity in the wording—which is really just playing tricks. Can we really not move on from such games after 20 years?
Game playing and tricks have been a feature of this debate for years, especially from the conservative side (see the mysterious amendments to the PLF, CEEC’s Beautiful Story, the insistence from the Alliance that they didn’t want to row back on Synod’s votes, the extraordinary effort you have to go to on here to get anything close to a clear answer about whether celibate partnerships are a problem or if sexual orientation is real/matters etc etc.). It’s sad and it’s frustrating, and I can only hope it’s a generational thing.
Are you kidding? ‘Conservative’ (aka orthodox Anglicans who believe and seek to uphold the Church’s doctrine—as they vowed to do at ordination) have been clear and consistent: they don’t believe doctrine should change, and have consistently argued (certainly here) that the PLF are a kind of double think. Even liberal bishops have admitted that!
Consistent in saying they don’t like same-sex marriage. After that there’s all the clarity of a muddy swamp.
Having a range of views is not muddiness. The orthodox on this are not a monolith; neither are liberals.
The main debate is about ‘concupiscence’: is having a consistent and settled pattern of desire for something sinful itself sinful. I don’t find the arguments that it is coherent or persuasive.
The other main issue is about the relation between holiness of life and roles in the community. What are the thresholds for baptism, participation, and leadership for those who are gay and/or in same-sex relationships.
The debates are pretty clearly set out in discussions I have been part of.
There are debates about whether gay people can be baptised?
No, there are debates about whether someone who is living publicly in contravention to the teaching of Jesus can be baptised, and on what grounds.
‘Repent and be baptised’ is the comment. The question is: from what must we repent. It is very strange that, after all our discussion, this debate is news to you.
There is a parallel debate about someone living in an other-sex relationship outside wedlock. The issue is: what is the threshold of discipleship for repentance?
If someone was a known embezzler, I would not baptise them until they repented and changed. Would you?
So not about “those who are gay and/or in same-sex relationships” after all, just about those who are in same-sex relationships?
The waters are getting muddy already…
Not muddy. Crystal clear. Those who are living outside the teaching of Jesus which he calls us to follow. We repent from the old, are baptised, and live a new life, according to the teaching of Jesus, by the power of the Spirit.
That applies to all people, straight or gay, black or white, male or female.
What do you find obscure in this?
When you suggest that there is a debate about gay people can be baptised, and then when challenged, switch to say you’re only talking people in same-sex relationships that’s a bit of muddiness.
Adam, it is not muddiness at all. You cannot simply equate ‘gay people’ with ‘people in same-sex relationships’. The first is a bigger group than the second; the first is about orientation, the second is about action and ethics.
I hope you have heard of Living Out…!
You asked specifically about baptism.
My view is that we should be extremely cautious about withholding the sacraments. I had an argument about this with my rector when I was a teenager and on my church’s PCC: he had wanted to withhold communion from unmarried couples, and sought the PCC’s approval, and I disagreed strongly and led the opposition (successfully). And whilst people might have a debate about it, I assume no one in the Church of England has actually been refusing baptisms or communion to people in same-sex relationships given the requirement of clergy to promise to live within the guidelines of Issues in Human Sexuality which is admirably clear that such people have freedom of conscience, are not to be rejected, and are part of the fellowship of the church.
On baptism specifically, that is an initiation into the church and Christian life not a conclusion of it, and requires a statement of faith not a checklist of sins. I am deeply uncomfortable with clergy setting themselves as gatekeepers of God’s grace and Christ’s love working out who satisfies their own view of worthiness and trying to lock out those who don’t make their grade. Hence, we don’t refuse to baptise infants even if the parents are unwed. The only people we are clear we would not baptise are those who have already been baptised.
Adam, glad that you are having that discussion. But the fact that the discussion needs to be had simply illustrates my point.
But Ian, it was you who said this was about “those who are gay and/or in same-sex relationships”! The or is telling me that the debate who can be baptised etc is not limited to those in same-sex relationships but also extends to those who are simply gay.
My point on the debate, is that that is something that would be helpful to thrash out in Synod, and we’re better starting there than jumping right to the end with same-sex marriage. I am absolutely game for a debate about whether the Church ought to restrict baptism to heterosexuals only. If there are people who want to do that, we need to have it out. What I’m not going to accept is that this is a debate that should be kept out of Synod because it’s all just up to the individual consciences of the clergy in particular churches on particular days, and nor should anyone expect to be given an inch on third provinces whilst this sort of stuff is up in the air as a possible practice.
Adam, I keep saying again and again, and I don’t understand why you find it hard to grasp:
I have NO interest whatsoever in whether people are straight or gay.
There is just no debate to be had here.
What matters is the pattern of life and obedience to the call of Jesus to live a new life. So I cannot make out why you keep going back to the language of ‘whether the Church ought to restrict baptism to heterosexuals only’. There is no discussion to be had there.
Then that’s great Ian. The Church is bigger than you and me though. So let’s see if it has consensus in the Church. Let’s issue some teaching documents that say that (amongst other things). That would be a helpful thing to settle: the Church of England does not see a homosexual orientation as sinful, or something to be repented of, has no problem with a Christian describing themselves as “gay”, and is not something that is necessary or encouraged to change.
Adam, it said all that in Issues in Human Sexuality. But liberals wanted that liberal document gone! (It was written by arch liberal Richard Harries.)
Such a pity so many conservatives had a merry time ignoring it.
I’d like to think the forthcoming Bishops Statement will cover this, but somehow I doubt it. Therefore Synod would be well advised to step in.
Only 20 years?
Over 50 years ago a Working Group reflected ‘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 which is found in marriage’.
Fifty years later we’re discussing whether such individuals may be baptised!
Jesus wept.
Working groups can say what they like. They have no authority.
Fifty years later, we still uphold the teaching of Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman. I think Jesus rejoices in our keeping his commandments.
I think folk are on a journey Penny. A year ago Ian was protesting to me that he didn’t know any responsible evangelical or leading orthodox Anglican (sic) who wants to exclude people in same-sex relationships from their churches. Now Ian says he won’t baptise such people and so is advocating for that exclusion himself. Baptism after all is how you are received into the Church…
I think views are hardening on both ‘sides’ and that this is largely the responsibility of the Bishops and, perhaps, General Synod. Queer folk are tired of being given stones and conservative are anxious that, despite their well-organised lobbying, small steps are being taken towards equality. There are always those who will tirelessly and generously campaign for their objectives but there are, I suspect, increasing numbers of those who will ignore tradition and law to achieve their own ends.
‘Conservatives’ (your term for faithful Anglicans upholding the teaching of the Church as they committed to in their ordination vows) are anxious that we have a leadership who are not.
Penny, as you know, *every single* Western church who has changed their doctrine of marriage by moving from the teaching of Jesus has seen accelerated decline. You seem to think that is a price worth paying. Many of us do not.
Adam, the problem is when you change the meaning of terms without realising it.
I do not ‘exclude’ people in same-sex relationships from church. All are welcome to come and to listen and explore.
That is not the same as baptism, which is a commitment to repent of sin and follow Jesus and his teaching.
My view has not changed on either questions.
(I am thinking of the strange practice—perhaps your church does this?—whereby the moment someone walks in the door of your church, they are immediately baptised before they can join in…!)
Errr I think I’m the one who’s keeping the meaning consistent. Baptism is how you are received into the Church. Liturgy and canons are clear on this (not to mention Church tradition). To get legally pernickety, you can’t be on the electoral roll in your church without being baptised. Ergo if you are not baptised you are excluded from the Church.
I am always bewildered that you insist in one breath that any clergyman wanting to re-examine Church teaching on sexual ethics is somehow outrageously breaching their ordination vows, but in the next breath are quite happy to see doctrines like baptism questioned and debated.
Ian
I’m interested in truth not the perpetuation of an institution.
Funny then that you quote Issues, above, approvingly. It teaches the same thing about same-sex relationships. And has long been regarded as authoritative.
I think Jesus rejoices in our love and grace – the generosity which baptised the Ethiopian eunuch without asking him if he embezzled his mistress’ money or had sex with his fellow slaves.
I don’t think he rejoices when we call his description of marriage – in an argument on divorce – a commandment.
Penny, I don’t quote IHS ‘approvingly’. I was just pointing out what it said.
Jesus teaches us in Matt 5 to obey the word of God, and in Matt 19 describes Gen 1 and 2 as the word of God.
It is the Church of England which therefore describes marriage as between one man and one woman as ‘the teaching of our Lord’. 99% of all Christians, in all places, in all traditions, throughout history, agree with this.
Of course you quoted it approvingly. She reminded Adam of what it said and pointed out that liberals wanted it gone.
Jesus doesn’t describe Genesis 1 and 2 as the word of God. He says that God, at creation, made male and female and that a man will be united to a woman in a new kinship group. Do you see a prohibition against same-sex relationships there? No, of course not.
Anymore than God crea dissting night and day means that They disapprove of dawn and dusk!
Penny, IHS was a liberal document written by a liberal, Richard Harries. Evangelicals (including me) were very wary of it indeed, not least in its distinction between the demands on clergy and laity. That liberals now wanted it gone shows how liberalism has become more radical over the years.
Jesus does describe Genesis as the word of God when he says ‘he who created them from the beginning…and he said:…’ Like every other Jew in the first century, Jesus believed that the scriptures were the word of God to his people. Surely you know that?
Yes, of course there is a prohibition of SSSRs there. It was written in a culture where other nations accepted SSSRs in some form or other; it was unique in ANE in prohibiting relationships other than male-female; the entire logic of marriage in the narrative is rooted in the sex differentiation described; and every Jewish and Christian commentator till about 5 minutes ago believed this. It is echoed in Lev 18 and 20, and also in Paul.
All this is really well established in the literature across the divide. How you don’t know this, I just don’t understand.