THE nine-year project Living in Love and Faith (LLF) came to an end after a long and impassioned debate on the Thursday, in which members aired their disappointment and frustration with what had and had not been achieved with regard to provision for LGBTQ+ people in the Church.
Before the debate began, the chair, the Archdeacon of Totnes, the Ven. Douglas Dettmer (Exeter), led tributes to the late Geoffrey Tattersall, who had chaired previous LLF debates. Archdeacon Dettmer urged members to choose their words carefully as they spoke on what remained a sensitive subject, reminding them many were listening beyond the floor of the chamber.
After silence and prayer, the Archbishop of York opened the debate. “This has not been an easy speech to write. This isn’t where I want us to be, nor where I hoped we would be three years ago,” he said. He knew that many members felt angry or disappointed, on both sides of the debate. The Bishops had taken responsibility for causing some of this, and wished to say sorry, Archbishop Cottrell said. “Knowing how divided we are, we haven’t been able to find further ways forward that honour the consciences of those who arrive at different conclusions.”
Despite the deep divisions exposed by the LLF debate, the Church continued to welcome all people regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexuality, or anything else, Archbishop Cottrell said. The disagreement was over how that welcome was expressed, which, he appreciated, was particularly hard for LGBTQ people.
“There have been failures of process which have caused real pain on all sides of this chamber.” LLF should not have been clouded in ambiguity or focused on striking “deals”, he admitted. The Bishops had relearned the importance of using legal and theological resources for synodical discussions. And so, despite the pain and failure, Archbishop Cottrell said that the Church was now better placed to understand one another and do better on the continuing conversations through the new working group. Hence, the House of Bishops had agreed, almost unanimously, the statement published in January. The Bishops did believe it was time to draw LLF to a close, and move the work forward in a “different way”.
Archbishop Cottrell said that he would, therefore, not vote for any of the amendments, although several of them had important things to say. The original motion “balances the disagreements we have”, while offering a way forward. He was braced for much criticism of the House of Bishops in the debate that would inevitably unfold, but he also dared to believe that there might be good ideas for progress emerging from the Synod floor and for finding consensus (as had happened with the replacement of Issues in Human Sexuality last year).
“There is hurt on all sides, but the Bible tells us: when one of us is hurting, we all hurt. Let us continue to reach out to one another and pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us in all truth,” he concluded. He hailed the fact that the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) were now available for same-sex couples, but he recognised that no more developments could be made beyond that. LLF must end, to create the space for answering the questions that remained.
The Revd Claire Robson (Newcastle) had wept when she read the apology to LGBTQ people in February 2023, but said that it had not actually changed anything. The cost of living within the “strictures” of Issues was incalculable, she said. Hopes had been dashed. She doubted that she would ever be permitted to marry her partner, who was aged 88, given this further delay. She would be standing down from the Synod soon, but she urged members to vote in favour of the motion to “encourage the Bishops to make real their apology, and to make hope for the LGBTQ community”.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesBusola Sodeinde (London)
The Revd Jody Stowell (London) spoke as a parent of a child of the LGBTQI+ community. When they had come out to her, they had had difficult conversations about whether “God loved them in their embodied reality.” She said that, given caveats “imposed by a fearful and anxious institution”, it was not clear to her. Some elements of the motion were “less bad”, she said, and it was the “least worst option”.
Busola Sodeinde (London) remained orthodox and faithful to scripture, she said, emphasising that both sides of the debate were hurting, “not only those of a more liberal persuasion”. Those who believed that they were seeking to remain faithful to God’s word, she said, had not been adequately consulted during the LLF process.
The Bishop of Birmingham, Dr Michael Volland, supported the motion, but urged the Synod to resist the amendments. The debate had caused “distress and pain”, and the Synod was “deeply divided in this”. If the motion was amended in one direction or another, there was a risk that the final motion would become unacceptable to a significant proportion of the Synod.
Anna de Castro (Sheffield) thanked everyone involved in the many stages of the LLF process, while acknowledging that there were many “heavy hearts” in the chamber. Some felt that they were being only tolerated in the life of the Church, she warned. She praised the presentation on the Tuesday, in which, she said, bishops had been more honest about where they agreed and disagreed.
“None of us are on a common mind on the vast majority of the substantive matters of the LLF project,” she said. This was a hill that bishops on both sides were willing to die on, she observed. If even the House of Bishops could not find consensus, they could not be a force for unity for the Church. The Bishops could be this only if they had a “robust provision” in place.
The Archdeacon of Bolton and Salford, the Ven. Dr Rachel Mann (Manchester), said that she would probably vote cautiously for the motion, despite her “heart being bruised”. She was “embarrassed” that nearly ten years of work had produced such a thin motion. She had attended private prayers of blessing for same-sex couples which were much more inclusive than the PLF formally commended, after all.
Dr Mann was tired of the Church’s failings and suspected that the House of Bishops ultimately wanted people like her to feel sorry for them. But there was still time for the Church to become a better place for LGBTQ people. “Woe to us if in ten years we are still talking and arguing,” she warned.
The Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk-Bell (Southwark) spoke to his amendment, which would replace the apology clause of the motion with one directed solely towards LGBTQ people. He said that the Synod had “broken his heart” with such a thin offering. The 2023 apology now rang utterly hollow, he said, and he spoke angrily of the “facetious charade” that was the LLF debates. “We are once again the acceptable sacrifice — the thing that is too difficult to do anything about.”
Why were pro-LGBT bishops not brave enough to speak publicly of their support? How could it be right that there was only one publicly out LGBTQ bishop? “What kind of Church is this? What have we created?” This was not just the Bishops’ fault, he said, but the responsibility of everyone on the Synod. He condemned the “failure of nerve” on the part of the bishops, who now offered little more than “thin gruel”.
Yet, he would vote for this because it was the only way forward. His amendment sought to “tell the truth”: that the C of E remained unwilling to affirm faithful, committed, beautiful, and godly queer lives. “We queer people have been brutalised through this campaign of intimidation. We have been made bargaining chips. We have been told time and time again that we are simply not worth it.” Having to wait was breaking LGBTQ people into “tiny pieces”. He apologised to LGBTQ people seeing that the Church could not celebrate them as it should. “But we will, and we will soon.”
Archbishop Cottrell said that he loved and respected Dr Bączyk-Bell. He would not resist the amendment, but he would not vote for it or any others. He believed that the unamended motion was the best way forward for those on both sides of the debate. If they wished there to be progress, that could happen; if they opposed progress, there was still “clarity on the way forward”.
The Revd Kathryn Campion-Spall (Bristol) said that the apologies that she had heard diminished the value of them, and that, until the Synod started doing something differently, Dr Bączyk-Bell’s amendment was the “best we can do”.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Claire Robson (Newcastle)
The Revd Professor Morwenna Ludlow (Exeter) said that the language that had been used during the LLF process was damaging and created shame. She reflected on the Gospel account of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus’s cloak.
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) said that the Synod should face “sobering realities”. In the Gospel, Jesus was fully inclusive, but marriage was between a man and a woman.
Dr Simon Clift (Winchester) said that he had joined the Synod in “high hopes”, but had since felt “dismayed and disappointed”. Those who held to historical teachings also felt the pain, and all groups needed to be recognised. Therefore, he rejected the amendment.
The amendment was lost in all three Houses: Bishops 22-6, with nine recorded abstentions; Clergy 90-80, with five recorded abstentions; and Laity, 94-88 with seven recorded abstentions.
The Revd Dr Christopher Landau (Lichfield) moved his amendment to acknowledge that LGBTQ people had a range of theological views which should be reflected in chaplaincy provision. As a recent arrival, he had been shocked at how factionalised the Synod had become. These groups could perpetuate “mutual suspicion and mistrust: are you with us, or them?” He recalled his experiences setting up the first LGBTQ chaplaincy in Oxford diocese, which had originally been intended to include a celibate conservative chaplain for “orthodox” LGBT Christians. Over time, however, this had fallen away, and so the chaplaincy had not won any credibility among the large conservative churches in the diocese to which it had been intended to minister.
“There are competing visions for how people who experience same-sex attraction live out the call of Christ,” he said. Creating chaplaincies that supported only one perspective would entrench factionalism rather than signpost “the grace of other perspectives, seeing Christ in one another across those tribal divides”.
Archbishop Cottrell was open for a debate, but reiterated that he would not vote for the amendment. “I don’t like the language of sides,” he said. He believed that the amendment was overly reductionist, considering the plethora of views in the chamber. The motion as it stood did not exclude the point that Dr Landau was making, and the diversity of LGBTQ people was also referred to in the Bishops’ statement.
Dr Laura Oliver (Blackburn) said that she was LGBTQ but believed that she was called to singleness and celibacy. She felt that her perspective had not often been heard during the LLF debates. Not all LGBTQ people longed for the PLF to be implemented in every church, she said. “My efforts to live a life as a treasured child of God, rejoicing in a life of singleness as modelled by Jesus himself, have been undermined and diminished.”
James Wilson (Manchester) opposed the amendment, recalling that a member of the congregation at the church that he attended had killed herself years ago because she believed that she could not reconcile her sexuality with her faith. At an inclusive church like his, single and celibate LGBTQ people would receive an unconditional welcome, but the same was not true in reverse at conservative churches, he said. Many conservative churches were not open about their views, but LGBTQ chaplaincies were helping. The amendment would “tie the hands of this ministry in an unhelpful way”.
The Revd James Menzies (Salisbury) backed the amendment. It was essential to acknowledge Christians who experienced “same-sex attraction” but were “courageous and prophetic” in choosing celibacy, saying with their lives that “Jesus is worth it.” The motion unamended did not explicitly recognise the existence of same-sex-attracted Christians, and so he could not vote for it.
Urging the Synod to reject the amendment, Matthew Edwards (Lichfield), said that he could not pursue ministry because of his same-sex marriage. LGBTQIA+ clergy who remained celibate were a small minority. The Synod should not justify the “profound harm” that the Church has caused, he said.
The amendment was defeated in a counted vote by Houses: Bishops 0-30, with seven recorded abstentions; Clergy 75-99, with two recorded abstentions; Laity 82-98, with six recorded abstentions.
Dr Ros Clarke (Lichfield) moved her amendment to call for the House of Bishops to apologise for not “paying due attention” to legal advice, which had caused it to raise hopes unfairly. She was grateful for those bishops who had admitted their mistakes and apologised, but said that the House of Bishops should “act as the spiritual leaders they are, and model for us that confession, repentance, and equality so desperately needed if there is any hope of forgiveness and reconciliation”.
In response, Archbishop Cottrell said that he stood by the apologies that he and other bishops had already made, but rejected her amendment as an “inaccurate caricature” of the situation. Legal advice had not been ignored, but there were different legal ways forward, and the Bishops had had to decide, considering “tactical”, theological, and pastoral concerns. “It was not the case that the legal advice said one thing, and the House of Bishops said another.” He was happy for the debate to continue, but would not vote for the amendment.
The Revd Neil Robbie (Lichfield) backed the amendment, arguing that good decisions needed good data. Too many speeches today and from the Bishops were using vague and unhelpful language, he said. “There is power in those words.”
Sam Wilson (Chester) said that the Synod was “addicted to apologies”. He did not know what Dr Clarke really wanted from her amendment. “This is just another way of dividing us. We don’t want apologies: we want action.”
The Revd Jonathan MacNeaney (Southwark) spoke for those members who felt that they had missed a chance for generational change to come. Decisions should not have been made, he said, without a two-thirds majority.
The amendment was lost in all Houses: Bishops 0-36, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy, 60-105, with seven recorded abstentions; Laity 68-107, with six recorded abstentions.
The Revd Stuart Cradduck (Lincoln) moved his amendment to remove the clause bringing LLF to a formal end. Everyone knew that the work from LLF was not yet complete, he argued. To bring it formally to a close now “risks undoing what has taken so much courage to begin”. The new working group deserved support, but it must be clear that it was not a new thing, but a continuation of LLF. If LLF was stopped, it would send a “harmful signal” that this season of listening and learning had ended. His church was one of few places where young LGBTQ people felt safe and had no need to “pray themselves normal”.
“This is the fruit of the LLF journey, a Church becoming more like Christ,” he said. If the Church now moved beyond LLF, it would be interpreted as backing away from its earlier commitments. “This will be experienced not as progress, but as betrayal.”
Archbishop Cottrell had sympathy with the amendment, but would not vote for it. LLF had achieved many good things, he said, but the very phrase had become “freighted with divisive connotations”. The Bishops had decided that the best way for the conversation to continue would be under a different label. This would “create space for other things to emerge in different ways”, he said.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) supported the amendment, as she, too, had a congregation “desperately disappointed” after the end of LLF. LLF did not have to be divisive and was not at odds with mission, but stopping it would be, she argued. “Keeping faith with LGBTQ people is growing our churches,” she said. “We are not giving up and going away.”
Philip Baldwin (London) said that there was still a lack of understanding about same-sex blessings. He questioned why the LGBTQIA+ community should make sacrifices when they had so little. He urged the full acceptance of LGBTQI+ people across the Church.
Canon Philip Bromiley (Salisbury) suggested that “pausing” and “taking a breath” could be “the biggest blessing”. He urged the Synod to listen to the Bishops’ advice, to “let go and look forward”.
The amendment was lost in all Houses: Bishops 0-36, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy, 74-94 with eight recorded abstentions; Laity 78-101, with six recorded abstentions.
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) proposed her amendment to add a clause urging the introduction of stand-alone PLF services for all clergy according to their conscience. She addressed the press gallery, asking: “Are you happy with the Bishops discussing how they can punish gay clergy for falling in love?”, and emphasised that this discussion would fail an employment tribunal. “For decades, same-sex blessings have happened quietly, unofficially, behind closed doors. Now is the time to be visible, to come out of the closet,” she said. If the withdrawal of licences and disciplinary hearings occurred, then these punishments should be made public, she said. She concluded with a quote by Gisèle Pelicot: “Let shame change sides.”
Archbishop Cottrell responded to the wording of Ms Brett’s amendment. He spoke on the FAOC paper on the development of doctrine, and said that PLF bespoke services were not commended or authorised. Therefore, he could not vote for the amendment, as it was not about removing restrictions.
Dr Brendan Biggs (Bristol) backed the amendment, arguing that the Church should proceed with stand-alone services even if that meant changes in theology or practice. The Church regularly changed its mind, on everything from clerical celibacy to marriage after divorce. “This is what we do.” The Bible must not be read as a code of rules binding the Church today, but be interpreted carefully, Dr Biggs said. He also cited examples in the New Testament in which, he said, religious restrictions had been amended in the face of God’s goodness.
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Dr Mandy Ford (Deans), said that the LLF process had actually reduced the freedom of clergy to follow their consciences. Ms Brett’s amendment was a modest one to “help steer us through the years ahead”. She reflected on the significance of symbolism in the marriage service, and said that it was better to allow a wide diversity of interpretation of signs rather than try to insert formalised rubrics into liturgy. She rejoiced in the diversity of interpretation of liturgy, and did not want it to be policed in a “spirit of scrupulousness, anxiety or fear”.
The Revd Dr Paul Chamberlain (Portsmouth) said that liturgy gave “expression” to the Church’s faith and that the Synod did not spend enough time on it. Why had the Church not spent nuanced time on liturgy on the PLF, he wondered, as it did on the Festival of God the Creator? Instead, the Bishops had simply commended the PLF without a synodical process. Did these prayers unite the Church, he asked. “We need full proper process, whatever we do, going forwards.” The amendment was attempting to get round this due process and must be resisted, he said.
Bob Chambers (Chichester) said that the Church had to take great care about how the decisions it took and the actions it pursued could be interpreted. “Our past comments have raised expectations in different quarters,” he said. The legal and theological advice had made clear that due process had to be followed now, but the amendment “brazenly” sought a course at odds with the Church’s doctrine of marriage, and must be resisted.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk-Bell (Southwark) speaks to move his amendment
The amendment was was lost in all Houses: Bishops 2-32, with four recorded abstentions; Clergy 76-95 with six recorded abstentions; Laity 83-102, with two recorded abstentions.
Debbie Buggs (London) introduced her amendment to delete the clause setting up a new working group on sexuality. She summarised her amendment as: “Stop, just stop!” Why would a different outcome result from starting yet another round of talks on this, she asked. The process had been traumatic for LGBTQ people; so the Church must not raise unrealistic hopes for change. LLF had dominated this Synod, she said, and other issues had become proxy debates for LLF. “Let’s not subject the next General Synod to the same thing.” Trust in the Bishops needed to be rebuilt, through transparency, accountability, and self-awareness, Ms Buggs said. She welcomed the beginning of the House of Bishops’ culture and governance review, before a successor to LLF was started.
In response, Archbishop Cottrell said that he would resist the amendment, because he could not let go of his “sisters and brothers who long for change”, even if he did not know whether this change could ever come. “We need the conversation to continue,” he said, and hoped that there was a way to move forward without tearing the Church apart. This amendment would be a “terrible mistake” both for conservatives and progressives, he argued.
The Revd Mike Smith (Chester) said that LLF had to be stopped before it was reborn under a new acronym. The Church had been on an “interminable escalator” for nearly 40 years, with no clear destination, and this had poisoned relationships between Anglicans. “We are called to speak the truth in love. Only that will reunite us,” he said. It was time to celebrate actively the doctrine of marriage and promote it in society, he said, as something that the Synod could reunite around.
The Bishop of Sherborne, the Rt Revd Karen Gorham (Southern Suffragans), said that the LLF process had been costly in every sense, especially for those who had contributed to it. It was tempting to think that the work could come to an end and the Church could close its eyes to the people around it, but Christians were still called to embrace the stranger and the marginalised. Ongoing working groups were important to “keep the work alive”, and this amendment must, therefore, be resisted, she said.
The Revd Lucy Davis (St Albans) said that only one of her three children was straight, and that none of them “did church, and I don’t blame them.” Her son had not come out to her until he was 17, because he feared that it would harm her career in the Church. When her children married, she could not bless them in the Church, she said. LLF should also have brought back memories of the “hard decades” of campaigning for the ordination of women. But that should also give hope that the Church could find a way through. Her hope now was not for her children — “It will be too late for them” — but for her grandchildren to be blessed, no matter what their sexuality.
Julie Withers (Chester) said that if something was of God it would endure, and, therefore, she would vote against the amendment.
The amendment was lost in all three Houses: Bishops 0-30, with five recorded abstentions; Clergy 66-107, with seven recorded abstentions; Laity 75-105, with six recorded abstentions.
The Revd Lis Goddard (London) moved her amendment, which called on the LLF working groups to prepare a review of the LLF process to inform the new working group and “learn the lessons of the past”. It was not only friendships that had emerged from the LLF working groups, she said, but also a shared attempt to find a way forward together. She also raised concerns about how well briefed the new working groups would be. She recommended that the existing working groups meet once more to brief the new groups.
Archbishop Cottrell agreed with Ms Goddard and did not want to throw away the work, saying “but nor will we.” He believed that the amendment would simply delay progress.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) delivered a speech on behalf of Julie Dziegiel (Oxford), who was unable to be present but had been in the LLF working groups. She had described her time as a “sad and sobering” experience. This amendment explicitly ensured that the work that was complete in these groups would not be lost, Ms Dziegiel had written.
Ed Shaw (Bristol) said that the answer lay in the working groups, and that the way forward was to return to them and ask how they could learn.
The Revd Jo Winn-Smith (Guildford) said that LLF had encouraged people to talk to one another “with love”. She said that the letters from the Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, and the Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Pete Wilcox, “cancelled each other out”. She urged the Synod to continue without delay, but to have an overlap.
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, said that all Christians should be committed to learning and, therefore, open to this review. He admitted that he had made mistakes in leading the LLF process, and he wanted to apologise for them, because he wanted to learn and to change. A review could help to exorcise the myths that had accumulated, particularly the idea that the “Leicester groups” had been a shining light of positivity. “LLF has not been a waste of time or money,” he insisted. It had taught the Church what it meant to be the Church, living well despite division.
The amendment fell because it was lost in the House of Bishops 2-82, with six recorded abstentions, although it was carried in the Clergy 88-87, with six recorded abstentions; and in the Laity 93-87, with four recorded abstentions.
Carl Fender (Lincoln) raised a point of order that the next amendment in the name of Professor Helen King (Oxford) sought an outcome (enabling stand-alone services) that had already been rejected in Ms Brett’s earlier amendment and was, therefore, out of order. The chair said that Professor King’s amendment had a broader purport than Ms Brett’s, and so was in order.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Jody Stowell (London)
Professor King moved her amendment, saying that it was unclear whether LLF was stopping or continuing. “It’s too much of an end for some, but not enough for others. It’s not a bang: it’s a whimper.” Her amendment would “pep up” the new working group to ensure that it was not simply talking, but would deliver action. Groups split 50/50 on LLF by definition would go nowhere, she said. Instead, she suggested appointing a majority who wanted to find a way towards what the Synod had voted for, but through the legislative route on which the Bishops had landed. “The route is clear; so let’s go there. We know what the process is; so what are we waiting for?”
Archbishop Cottrell said that he would not vote for the amendment, but welcomed debate. There was value in balanced representation on working groups, he said. They would be constituted to move forward “purposefully, mindful of the diversity of the views in the Church”.
The Revd Will Pearson-Gee (Oxford) said that the Church had not stopped the LLF train, but simply repainted it with a new logo, aiming for the same destination. “Bishops need to let go of some of their power, because, if they don’t, that train will end up in the exactly the same place,” he said.
The Revd Dr Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) was both a historian and a realist, and knew that change in the Church happened slowly. Professor King’s amendment created a chance for the Synod to debate “bread, and not more stones”.
Cathy Rhodes (Sheffield) also supported the amendment, and spoke of “queer couples” who had not had the chance to support each other during their ministry in the way in which she had enjoyed married to her ordained husband. They should have the chance of services of blessing in church, too, she said.
The Revd Clive Watts (Leicester) supported the amendment, saying that, over the past 30 years, he had been involved in consultations such as LLF. He told the Synod that, last year, he had sat by an intensive-care bed as “his loving committed partner of the last 32 years clung to the edge of life. And then the House of Bishops’ draft statement was issued. Coming when it did, this felt like one betrayal too many. As the man I’ve loved for over three decades clung to life, the Church I’ve loved all that time finally broke what little trust I had left.” He said that the Bishops had offered rejection when people needed “hope and compassion”. The amendment was not an attempt to silence voices, he concluded: “all views need to be heard.”
The amendment was lost in all Houses: Bishops 12-21, with three recorded abstentions; Clergy 81-94, with four recorded abstentions; and Laity 86-100, with three recorded abstentions.
A motion to close the debate then fell, 173-208, with 17 recorded abstentions.
The Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, said that, during the afternoon’s debate, the Bishops had been accused of blocking progress and “giving stones instead of bread”. Although there were disagreements among the Bishops, there were also broad agreements of caution regarding “anything that would undermine our ecclesiology or our Anglican identity”, she said. She emphasised that there was no “abuse of power”, but that the Bishops had tried to fulfil their responsibilities as much as they could.
Simon Friend (Exeter) said that the lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ people and the discomfort of those who feared change were not the same. He rejected the language that suggested that “there is pain on both sides,” and said that one side represented a wound, while the other reflected a conviction.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) was unsure how to vote on the initial motion, as he feared that the working groups would come up with a solution only to be rejected by the Bishops, leaving the Church back where it started. He said that a settlement could be found along the lines of the 2014 agreement over women bishops.
Piyush Jani (co-opted) said that the Synod must recognise that it exercised only authority derived from Christ. Members must heed the warning of the first-century Temple, which was destroyed in God’s judgement because it departed from the way of the Lord. “Let us learn first from Christ, then from each other.”
The Archdeacon of Cheltenham, the Ven. Katrina Scott (Gloucester), referred to the lament, anger, and disappointment palpable in the chamber. But she did not want those listening to hear only negative words when talking about sex and relationships and LGBTQ people. She supported the motion, and spoke of the call to be people of “love, gratitude, and hope”.
Susan Cavill (Derby) said that her vicar had consulted the congregation and PCC over the PLF during a discussion morning. It had become clear that there were views both for and against, but no one wanted this to split the church, and both sides thought that stand-alone services outside regular worship were a reasonable compromise. Of course, this was no longer an option, but it could be a way forward for unity for the whole Church, she suggested.
The Revd Kate Massey (Coventry) had been moved by how her LGBTQ friends were coping with the way in which the Church had “denied their dignity”. The past four years had broken her friends, but they were still prepared to give the Church another chance, she said. It was an uninspiring motion, but she would vote for it. “Let us commit to the journey together, and next time do better by God’s grace.”
The Revd Andy Fyall (Methodist Church) acknowledged that he was speaking to a “hurting Church”, but came from the Methodists, who had travelled a similar journey in recent years. The Methodists’ own journey on same-sex relationships had ended with their seeking to be an inclusive Church. It had not been easy, but had been “more than worth while”. He urged for more dialogue between the two denominations.
The Archbishop of Canterbury praised members for the tone of their debate and their longer-term engagement in LLF. She honoured those who had felt wounded by the process but had remained with the Church. She thought that the motion created a “sensible way forward to the next steps”. “Hope is a muscle that we need to flex,” she said: hope not in the Church, but in God.
Canon Vaughan Roberts (Oxford) was exhausted at the prospect that this process would continue, but the motion had not sketched out a “completely new approach” to stop the Synod going “round and round again”. He knew that the two sides would never meet in the middle: both felt that this was a matter of “gospel integrity”. They could continue fighting for a winner-takes-all approach and forcing the losers out of the Church — or, he said, they could work together towards a settlement. The working groups showed the beginnings of that. He knew that the House of Bishops was not ready to accept that kind of “differentiation”, but he thought that this would be a “lesser pain” than the alternatives. “Otherwise, we will continue in pain for years to come.”
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of Birmingham, Dr Michael Volland, supports the motion
Pip Collins White (Youth Representatives) could see that there was a will in the chamber to resolve this intractable conflict. “I do not know how resolution can be reached, but I do have hope that our Church will soon no longer feel the pain.” Over time, with new voices and ideas, something more hopeful could emerge; so please support the motion, he told the Synod.
The Interim Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley, who was in favour of the motion, referred to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, saying that Synod felt weary of debating LLF. The theological understanding of what it meant to live in love and faith had been a “long and hard one”. She urged members to look beyond personal stories to “the story of the creator, God, who loves all that he’s made”.
After a counted vote by Houses, the unamended motion was carried: Bishops, 34-0, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 109-62, with ten recorded abstentions; Laity 109-70, with nine recorded abstentions.
The motion read:
That this Synod:
a) recognise and lament the distress and pain many have suffered during the LLF process, especially LGBTQI+ people;
b) affirm that the LLF Programme and all work initiated by the February 2023 LLF Motion and subsequent LLF Motions will conclude by July 2026;
c) thank the LLF Working Groups for their committed and costly work, which will now draw to a close with the conclusion of this synodical process;
d) commend the House of Bishops in establishing the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group and Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group for continuing work.
Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here