THE General Synod reached a consensus on an issue relating to Living in Love and Faith on Tuesday morning, as members voted almost unanimously to remove a key document from the ordination process.
Issues in Human Sexuality, a teaching document that the Synod has previously agreed should be replaced (Synod, 12 July 2024), was withdrawn, after a cross-partisan vote on a private member’s motion that had originally been proposed by the Revd Mae Christie, and was on Tuesday fronted by Paul Waddell (both of Southwark).
Issues was approved by the House of Bishops in 1991 and became part of the discernment process: candidates were asked to accede to its provisions. Professor Helen King (Oxford) said, however, that it had never been intended to be used in this way, nor applied to lay people, which, in some instances, she said, it had been.
The document refers throughout to “homophiles”, speaks of “the bisexual”, and suggests that bisexual people should seek counselling “to discover the truth of their personality” — a line that some have read as an endorsement of conversion therapy.
Another passage says that it would “wise to ponder” what “ethical criteria” need to be considered if it is found that the “homophile orientation is genetic in origin”, and if it were possible to “eliminate that orientation in future generations by genetic engineering”.
Several Synod members spoke about the harm that Issues had done to people during the discernment process. Matthew Edwards (Lichfield) said that it had “fallen heavily” on LGBTQ+ people.
The Dean of Women’s Ministry in the diocese of St Albans, the Revd Lucy Davis, said that many women considering ordination had been left in tears by what they had read in the document. Some had dropped out of the discernment process as a result. “Issues needs to go, and it needs to go now,” she said.
A prominent figure from the conservative Evangelical wing of the Church, the Rector of St Ebbe’s, Oxford, Canon Vaughan Roberts, spoke in support of the motion.
He was, he said, someone who “experienced exclusively same-sex attraction”, and did not think that Issues was a helpful document. He suggested, however, that it should not be removed without some form of replacement; therefore, he was pleased to support an amendment from the Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester), which would specify that the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (GPCC) stand in its place.
Canon Roberts’s speech was met with sustained applause. Mr Waddell thanked him for his contribution, and suggested that it was to be hoped that the collaborative atmosphere of the debate would “set a new tone” before further debates in February 2026.
The Church Times understands that extensive discussion had taken place behind the scenes in the run-up to the debate to ensure that what was being proposed would be palatable to as many members as possible. Key to this was the suggestion that Issues be temporarily replaced with the GPCC.
The GPCC, which was enacted by the Synod in 2015 and endorsed by the then Archbishops of Canterbury and York, says that “clergy should set an example of integrity in relationships, and faithfulness in marriage.”
It cites a House of Bishops teaching document from 1999 which affirms that “sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively.”
Proposing her amendment endorsing the GPCC as a replacement for Issues, Ms Bridgman acknowledged that it was not intended to be part of the discernment process. It stood to reason, however, that those testing a vocation should be able to accede to guidelines for the conduct of priests, she said.
Although it was not in itself a legal document, it pointed to relevant canon law, and would fill the gap before pastoral guidance, a code of practice, and a Bishops’ statement were brought to Synod.
The Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury) praised the tenor of the debate, and welcomed the replacement of Issues with the GPCC. But the long-term need, he said, was for a “deep, pastorally sensitive, theologically rich replacement”.
“We might be on the cusp of a rare moment of consensus on an LLF debate,” Ms Bridgman observed, a sentiment with which the Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) agreed. “Seize the moment,” he urged the Synod, and called for a vote to be taken so that they could move on to other business.
The chair permitted a few more speeches.
Debbie Buggs (London) was the only member to speak against the motion. She recognised that the wording of Issues “wasn’t helpful”, and pointed out that the Synod had been promised that proposals on new pastoral guidance, stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples, and a settlement for those who opposed their use would all be presented simultaneously. The current motion, she said, amounted to movement on one of those three legs, without progress on the other two, and that this should be resisted.
A vote by a show of hands was taken, and only two or three members opposed the motion.