THE General Synod, on Monday afternoon, voted by narrow majorities in the House of Clergy and the House of Laity in favour of a motion put forward by the lead bishop for Living in Love and Faith (LLF), the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow (News, 21 June).
The chair, Geoffrey Tattersall KC, began the session with a light-hearted update about his love for chocolate, holding up a packet of Maltesers which had been provided by an unnamed member. Members were told that Daniel Matovu (Oxford) had made a point of order under standing orders arguing that the motion contradicted a previous decision of the Synod in the past year (News, 9 February 2023), but Mr Tattersall had ruled against this submission, allowing the debate to continue.
Bishop Snow introduced his documents and motion by asking everyone listening to “delight in the beauty of the Church”. “We spend a lot of time at Synod telling ourselves how ugly we are as a Church, how we get it wrong,” he said. “But what if we dared to believe that God looks on us and smiles?”
God invited everyone to “delight in one another”, and he urged members to move beyond numbers and money to model instead the friendship across disagreement displayed by the members of the working groups during their weekend away in Leicester (News, 8 May). His paper suggested that common life in the Church should be based not on organisational structure, but the communion of the three Persons of the Trinity. “We are united in our hope of one day being sat at the table of heaven, and that will be a beautiful sight.”
What should the Church do, therefore, about its “temporary and fleeting divisions” — he had heard and understood that some people thought that they could not remain in communion with others, having different views on marriage and sexual ethics. These people still had a place in the Church of England, including those in the Alliance network (News, 5 July), Bishop Snow said.
Others could stay in communion only as long as the Synod did not enshrine injustice in church structures, he said. These people, too, had been heard and respected, and had a place in the Church, including those in the Together network.
“We all want the best for the Church, and yet we profoundly disagree. So what now?” Maybe those on both sides might have to, for a while, settle for “second best”. Maybe there are different degrees of communion, and nobody is forced to sit at the same table.
“None of us get what we want, and all of us have to trust each other,” Bishop Snow said. The Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) did not imply a change of doctrine, or teach that sex outside of marriage was right: they were simply an offer of welcome. They would not start until pastoral guidance for their use was in place, and a structure of provision for those who would and would not use the prayers: delegated episcopal ministry. Not all the details of what this would mean had been worked out.
The final proposal would be brought to the Synod next year. “Nothing changes this autumn; what we ask today is, are you content for us to continue working on these details?” Nobody was being asked to sign a blank cheque, Bishop Snow insisted.
“We are not trying to pretend any of this is perfect,” he continued, acknowledging that many were angry about the process, or concerned by a lack of transparency. He knew that some had been in tears at the Synod, feeling that they were being forced out of the Church. “But I genuinely do not believe this is the case,” he said.
Everyone must settle for second best, knowing that this side of heaven the Church can never be perfect.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of Canterbury said that the debate was about salvation. The Church was called to the cure of souls across England, he said, as he recounted his own conversion 49 years ago. “As with me, then, this discussion now is about people following Christ.” That was one reason of many that he could not imagine the C of E without the Alliance network. He owed that tradition his own salvation, and that they should flourish in the Church was “indispensable to the gospel”, he argued.
Similarly, he could not imagine the C of E without the members of the Together network. “The reality of the Church as we live it is always messy,” he said, but it must be always reconciling together and reaching out to those beyond its walls. “That the Church flourishes as one is indispensable to the gospel, and to the Anglican Communion.” The Church was not yet near a final decision, but engaged in detailed planning, so that all could flourish, and salvation be proclaimed clearly to the nation, he concluded.
The Revd Stuart Cradduck (Lincoln) said that he would be supporting the motion, despite his concerns that it amounted to procrastination. Decisions had been made at successive meetings, he said, suggesting that it was time for them to be put into action. He had been subject to a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) for blessing a same-sex couple after their marriage, he said, and been called an apostate. It was time to move on “positively, and by the guidance of the Spirit”.
The Revd Will Harwood (Truro) said that the Synod seemed to have got lost in “chronic and exhausting disagreement” as it navigated the LLF process, which, he said, threatened to fracture the Church. He suggested that the Bishops were using their power to push the debate in whichever direction they wished, overriding the will of the democratically elected Houses of Clergy and Laity. Fair process was not being followed on stand-alone services, he said, leaving clergy who use them without legal protection. The motion lacked clarity and offered no assurances to either side of the argument. “To me, this motion feels rushed and unwise.”
Helen Lamb (Oxford) said that the “destination has been made clear. The bus is travelling, the route stops are mapped out . . . and, right now, it feels like some of us are being run over by that bus.” Speaking to those in favour of changes, she said that those, like her, who opposed them were sincere in their disagreement. “We are not obstructing or delaying or playing games: we are seeking to obey God above all,” she said. “I am pleading with the Bishops to work with us.”
The Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, said that he had been warmly in favour of the PLF, but had concerns now about the motion before them. He was worried that the introduction of stand-alone services would undermine previous commitments by the House of Bishops that the PLF would not contradict holy matrimony. Legal advice given to the Bishops stated that the stand-alone services must not resemble marriage services, but many now worried that they did, and would therefore be indicative of a change of doctrine. Going back to the February 2023 approach of commending would be “a gloss that I just don’t think will do”. Moving safely forward and together would need a return to canonical authorisation through the Synod, he warned. He knew that there was “colossal pressure” to get the PLF done, but cutting corners would be a mistake. Without more doctrinal work, the motion was not “oven-ready, and will generate more problems than it solved”.
The Revd Aneal Appadoo (UKME co-opted), in a maiden speech, said that he rather enjoyed the process involved in synodical discussions, as it provided safety. “It shows that we can’t just make things up as we like,” he said. The lack of trust, at least when it came to LLF, was because processes had not been followed, he suggested. He referred to earlier reassurances that the doctrine was not being changed, but said that there had been “mission creep”, as the Bishops now admitted that they had received legal advice to the effect that stand-alone services of blessing would amount to a change in doctrine. Had the Synod been deliberately misled, he wondered. He hoped it was not the case, but he, for one, “felt tricked”.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, supported the motion. “In spite of its many flaws, the Church remains the Body of Christ,” she said. Since the Reformation, the C of E had always made room for diversity, tolerating disagreement on many issues without breaking communion. She supported provision for each side of the Church, but opposed the idea of a “third space”, which, she said, amounted to “dividing up the household of faith”. At times, calls for more theology were a “displacement activity”, she warned, given that, even with more theology people, would still disagree. Theology was not just words, but deeds.
The Revd Dr Brenda Wallace (Chelmsford) reminded the Synod that the debate was about “real people” who had been disadvantaged or hurt by the Church. She was looking forward to conducting the marriage of her previously divorced daughter, but this was possible only because of the courage of a previous Synod in changing the rules about the marriage of divorcees. She hoped that Synod would again make changes and show the “generosity to reach out with Christ’s loving arms”.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, then moved his amendment, which called for more funding from the Archbishops’ Council for the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) to complete the doctrinal research that they were being asked to deliver by February. Dr Innes said that the FAOC’s two interim theological advisers were due to be replaced by a full-time adviser in the autumn, but he hoped to retain the interim members on part-time contracts, which required more money. There was also a concern that academics were increasingly less able to give their time freely to the Church as part of their work, as hard-pressed university departments were less willing to release theologians pro bono. He also asked for “realism” about the FAOC, which, he said, was not a magisterium that handed down the answers to difficult questions. FAOC was made up of 16 people, including six bishops. “We will not be pushing a particular line, but giving balanced theological reflection to the different perspectives in the Church,” he said. But this must be properly resourced.
Bishop Snow said that he warmly welcomed the amendment, and thanked the FAOC and its advisers for the work they had done for the PLF project. The debate showed how important doctrinal questions were, and it was right that this work needed to be properly resourced.
The chair of the Finance Committee of the Archbishops’ Council, Carl Hughes, confirmed that the Council was satisfied that funds were available.
Julie Withers (Chester) supported the amendment, but said that the working groups needed more expert advice.
James Cary (Bath & Wells) hoped that the fruits of this theological work would be made available, in full, to members of the Synod, and not just delivered orally to the Bishops.
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Mandy Ford (Canterbury), said that theology was not just about biblical interpretation. Anglican theology also was grounded in the study of science, and she pleaded with members to consider theology coming from other traditions.
Richard Denno (Liverpool) asked for reassurance that voices around the Anglican Communion would be incorporated into the theological work.
The amendment was carried on a show of hands.
The Revd Andrew Cornes (Chichester) then spoke to his amendment, which would remove the part of the original motion which called for the replacement of Issues in Human Sexuality. He said that everyone agreed that Issues should go, but that the Synod could not agree its replacement by pastoral guidance as yet half-written. The Bishops’ Statement and Code of Practice were not even in draft form, he said. “This was asking for too much trust; it would be unwise to give it.” He also said that those documents could not replace Issues as they did not give enough weight to theology. “In a world so muddled about sex, it is essential the Church has a message about sex which is clear, distinctively Christian, pastoral, and freeing.” The current pastoral guidance, the Bishops’ statement, and the code of practice were not “careful Anglican theology”, and so were not able to replace Issues. He suggested that the Revd Professor Oliver O’Donovan — “probably the most respected moral and pastoral Anglican theologian in the world” — be asked to produce a theological statement for the House of Bishops.
Bishop Snow said that he accepted that there was not enough detail in the current paperwork, but that it was necessary to be clear that Issues was to be replaced. For this reason, he resisted the amendment.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesA member seen during the LLF debate on Monday afternoon
Alianore Smith (Southwark) said that the Synod had been promised several times that it would not be asked to vote on the PLF without the full pastoral guidance in front of it. Yet it was now being asked to do so. She urged the Synod to vote for the amendment.
The Revd Mae Christie (Southwark) disagreed with Mr Cornes about whether Issues was a serious piece of theology, and quoted the document to suggest that it was conceived as a staging post, to be replaced once more work had been done. She referred to further passages about “the bisexual” and “homophiles” which, she said, sounded like endorsements of conversion therapy, and said that the document deserved to be put in the bin.
Canon John Bavington (Leeds) questioned whether the bishops’ were acting wisely and fairly by requesting the Synod’s approval for an as yet unwritten document to replace Issues.
The Revd Robert Thompson (London) said that Issues had been conceived as a teaching document, and it was unclear how it came to be used as a disciplinary document. On process grounds, therefore, Issues should go, because it was not meant to be used in the way that it was now. It also contained injunctions against homophobia, but this element was not being upheld, he suggested, pointing out continuing homophobia in the Church.
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle) thought that the Synod had already decided to abolish Issues. She urged members to trust the Bishops and working groups to bring the pastoral guidance back to them.
Dr Simon Eyre (Chichester), in favour of the amendment, said that it seemed inappropriate to bundle together several documents, some of which were incomplete, to replace Issues, as they were too disparate: despite the failings of Issues, it was a document that could be referenced, he suggested. More work was needed on its replacement, and this amendment gave time for this.
The Revd Alex Frost (Blackburn) resisted the amendment because, he said, it failed to appreciate the “endless hours” spent in the LLF process considering these questions. The Bishops should be given the chance to make it work, and reunite the Church.
Dr Rosalind Clarke (Lichfield), in favour of the amendment, urged caution about assigning authority to documents that had not yet been developed. The amendment prejudged the work of FAOC, working groups, and the House of Bishops, she said, and it was better to wait for more clarity before making a decision.
Dr Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) said that he was initially unimpressed with the House of Bishops, but this changed when it conceded its own divisions more honestly. He said that the refusal of some parts of the Synod to trust their bishops was “disgraceful”. Issues could not continue, and members should trust the Bishops to come up with something better, even if was not yet complete. Voting the amendment through would be an unacceptable obstruction of the LLF project.
The Revd Charlie Skrine (London) said that Issues was an “embarrassing” document, but that he supported the amendment on the grounds that it should not be replaced until the relevant documents had been drafted. The question of discipline was an important one, and so it was necessary to have clarity before agreeing to it.
Samuel Wilson (Chester) said that the people behind the LLF project “are not idiots, and would not propose something to us which doesn’t have the confidence of this place”. It was nerve-racking to say yes to a document that had not been seen, but he was confident that it would be something everyone could agree on.
Clare Williams (Norwich) said that the Synod could not vote through a blank cheque for the Bishops, as it would obscure transparency and accountability. She supported the amendment.
After a counted vote by Houses, the amendment was lost: Bishops, 11-23 with five recorded abstentions; Clergy, 93-97 with two recorded abstentions; Laity 90-93 with three recorded abstentions.
Returning to the main motion, Canon Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) recalled how an Anglican colleague had entered into a civil partnership years ago, and had asked her to lead them in a service of blessing around the eucharist (after one partner had first been baptised). She said that she felt like a “pioneer minister” by offering a “fresh expression of church”, and urged the Synod not to lose sight of how the pastoral related to the missional.
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) said that those who opposed the motion did so out of theological conviction. If the motion was carried, trust in the Bishops would fall further, he suggested. In practice, the C of E would split, and continue in “serious decline”. He referred to the example of the Scottish Episcopal Church, suggesting that decline in attendance had been due to its introduction of same-sex marriage. He asked those who wanted to vote for the motion to do so with “open eyes” to the consequences.
The Revd Graham Kirk-Spriggs (Norwich) said that the Synod had avoided an elephant in the room: “judgement”. Much of the conversation was driven by a theology of fear, that if the wrong decision was reached God would judge and disown the Church. “Doctrine doesn’t save us, only Jesus can.” He wanted conservatives to be a part of the Church, and urged them not to be afraid of God, or of praying with people like him. He had once been convinced that God hated him, but overcoming this had brought him into fullness of life.
The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond (Norwich) said that, in his experience, things that went wrong in the Church were due not to conspiracy but to incapacity. More work needed to be done, he said, but this was not anybody’s fault — it was that the tasks were complex, and needed careful and lengthy consideration.
Sammi Tooze (York) said that the journey to the motion was “lengthy and costly”, but it would help the Church to move forward. She praised the change in language from “experiment” to “discernment”. Stand-alone services would not look very different from the PLF already commended and in use. They would not necessarily look like weddings, she said, only services to “bless the goods of a loving, faithful relationship”. This was not a doctrinal question, but a pastoral one, enabling a full welcome to LGBTQ people.
The Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham, the Rt Revd Paul Williams, said that the most transparent thing would be to acknowledge that the Synod was not yet ready to move forward “as one Church”. He urged members to vote against the motion and invite the Bishops to “think again”, and not to proceed in a way that might split the Church.
Zoe Ham (Carlisle) said that the Synod was divided not only on the principle of same-sex marriage, but also what kind of disagreement this was. She argued that the question was not something Christians could “agree to disagree” on, but said that those who agreed with that should treat her as a “weaker sister” and not exercise their freedom in a way that wounded her conscience. Ask the Bishops to come back with something that might protect her conscience, she urged. “You care about the cure of souls, so please care about the cure of mine.” She longed for a space in the Church in which the current doctrine could be upheld and proudly defended, not seen as something embarrassing.
The Revd Neil Patterson (Hereford) sought to remind the Synod of how voting against the motion would be heard: telling Christians in committed same-sex marriages that “their faith is false, and that they are liars before God”.
Canon Vaughan Roberts (Oxford) warned that carrying the motion would “catapult” the C of E towards a schism along the lines of the split between the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church in North America. He also spoke of the Orthodox Ordinands group, who, he said, were “deeply concerned” whether there would be a place for them in the Church should the motion be carried. Conservatives were prepared to negotiate for a settlement, but the latest proposals were not a place to start from. “This is far from oven-ready,” he warned. The Church must not rush into this too quickly, because the consequences could be massive.
The Archdeacon of Bolton and Salford, the Ven. Rachel Mann (Manchester), said that the motion was not a “comforting fiction but an invitation into a deeper reality”. It was not perfect, and would not satisfy everyone, but the Synod should still carry it because it would move the debate forward, she said. Neither the liberals nor the conservatives would get what they truly wanted, whether it was gay marriage in church or a separate province.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, moves the LLF motion
“Doctrine matters: it really matters,” Daniel Matovu (Oxford) said. It was unitary: “Jesus did not say ‘I am the truths, the ways, and the lives.’” He reiterated calls for the legal advice received by the bishops to be published in full, before his final point was cut off as he had gone over the time limit for speeches.
Abigail Ogier (Manchester) said that the doctrine of marriage also stated that marriage was lifelong, but she was an example of many Anglicans who had divorced and married again in church. She supported the current motion. Good people willing to train for ministry were being lost because they were, or wanted to be, married to their same-sex partners. “The Holy Spirit could easily convict whichever half of the Church was wrong of the error of their ways, but they have not.” This meant that God wanted the Church to work through its differences.
Dr Laura Oliver (Blackburn) said that she was convinced that she was right in her belief that same-sex relationships should not be pursued, which, for her, meant living a celibate life. She recognised, however, that those who disagreed were equally as convinced. She said that the voices of LGBT people who lived celibate lives were too often ignored, and that there was not a space for her in the proposals. By trying to keep everyone together, the Bishops were actually pushing them apart, she suggested, and called on members to reject the motion.
The Revd Jody Stowell (London) recalled her devastation when the women- bishops legislation had failed in November 2012, and she had felt that the Church did not recognise her equal humanity. That was what was being debated again today, she argued. Could the Church get to a place where there was no “them”, only “us”? “The tiny crumb being offered today is the bare minimum, and has been voted on already.” She urged the Bishops not to delay any longer.
The Archbishop of York said that it had felt like “18 months of trench warfare”, and hoped that it was now time to put down the rifles and play a game of football in no man’s land. He supported the motion, which, he said, already amounted to a compromise, which “wasn’t what anyone wanted”. Regarding the PLF, no one would be forced to do anything against their conscience, he said, and further work would be done on other aspects. He appealed to members of the Alliance, saying that their help was needed to ensure that provision could be worked out that would enable the Church to stay together.
A motion for the closure was then put to the Synod, and was carried by 226 votes to 175 with eight recorded abstentions.
Responding to the debate, Bishop Snow praised the tone of the speakers and the kindness shown to those on the other side. He wanted to reassure members that the papers produced by the FAOC would be published soon, as would future theological study. The documents produced to replace Issues would be seen and approved by the Synod in February, he said. Nobody was being asked to “sign a blank cheque”.
He particularly thanked Mr Patterson, a leading figure among the pro-LGBTQ caucus on the Synod, who was due to stand down soon, and Dr Oliver. “I want to reiterate once again, there is a place for you in the Church of England,” he told her.
“I hear clearly that we haven’t got it right,” Bishop Snow told other conservatives, but insisted that the papers were a work in progress, and that the bishops were learning as they went. “Whatever your consciences tell you, this is not the end of the journey.”
After a counted vote by Houses, the motion, as amended, was passed: Bishops, 22-12, with five recorded abstentions; Clergy, 99-88, with two recorded abstentions; Laity, 95-91, with two recorded abstentions.
That this Synod:
(a) support the overall proposal and timetable set out in GS 2358;
(b) request that the House of Bishops, with the advice of the LLF working groups:
i. revise the Pastoral Guidance to remove restrictions on the use of PLF in “standalone” services alongside the introduction of an arrangement to register for Pastoral Reassurance;
ii. establish the basis for the provision of Pastoral Reassurance through a House of Bishops’ Statement and Code of Practice which provides for the delegation of some specific and defined episcopal ministry, and which is overseen by an Independent Review Panel;
iii. report to this Synod at its February 2025 group of sessions on the further theological work carried out under the auspices of the Faith and Order Commission around the nature of doctrine, particularly as it relates to the doctrine of marriage and the question of clergy in same-sex civil marriages, this work to be appropriately budgeted and resourced by the Archbishops’ Council in terms of theological advice, travel and meeting costs in order to increase the likelihood of meeting the timescales as set out in GS 2358.
(c) Agree that taken together the Pastoral Guidance, the Bishop’s Statement and Code of Practice for pastoral provision will replace Issues in Human Sexuality.
(d) Agree for the arrangements for Pastoral Reassurance to be regularly monitored over a period of at least three years before being formally reviewed by General Synod.