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