Helen King’s motion for General Synod: outcome and assessment

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 honest 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:

1. 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;
2. 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)

3. 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;
4. that many others, even after long and thoughtful study remain uncertain, and
5. 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 22^nd 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:

1. 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?
2. There has been a change of Archbishop of Canterbury with the loss of Justin Welby who was very strongly pushing for change.
3. 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).
4. 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. 
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. 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).