THE inconclusive conclusion to Living in Love and Faith at the General Synod last week was probably inevitable, although it was greeted by anger and tears, and individuals on both sides of the debate expressed “hurt”. I recognise the disappointment of those who hoped for change, but I am troubled by the way in which a sense of hurt is being weaponised to trigger pity and shame in others.

What increasingly occurs in church debates reflects a tendency in wider society: to give hurt feelings a particular potent moral claim. At least one speaker argued that “lived experience” must always win against theory-based argument. The primary moral injunction of our age has shifted from “Do what is right” to “Be kind.” Causing hurt then becomes the ultimate crime against inclusion. So. those who object to giving same-sex blessings a parallel status to marriage’s cannot hope to compete when a notion of kindness is the pre-eminent consideration. This represents a profound shift in the way in which we construct moral arguments.

We see the same sort of shift in other areas, including medically assisted dying. In this instance, being kind to an individual in permitting a medically assisted death outweighs any other consideration, including the possibility that the individual might be under pressure from others, or that the permission might come to be extended to anyone who claims to be suffering intolerably.

I think we should be concerned by the intellectual slippage that has come to prioritise kindness over truth or morality. It represents a profound shift in our moral compass, a prioritising of feeling over thinking, emotion over reason. When I was a child, adults sometimes spoke of the necessity of being “cruel to be kind”, which meant forbidding something much desired that could, in fact, do harm.

The debate on same-sex blessings is far from over. As I have suggested previously, the conservatives need to make a much stronger case against same-sex relationships — a case that goes beyond a few biblical phrases. The liberals need to articulate what good same-sex blessings bring to society as a whole, and not only to the couple. (See the preface to the marriage service.) As it happens, I suspect that the C of E will muddle its way towards everyone getting part of what they want.

I have already attended two public stand-alone same-sex blessings held in cathedrals. While full approval is not on the cards for now, what is desired is more or less already happening. To say whether this is fair to opponents of the change on biblical grounds is above my pay grade, but, at some point, the C of E is going to have to make theological sense of same-sex relationships. The conclusion should be on more solid grounds than simply those of “kindness”.