A small miracle has just occurred at General Synod. On the final day of the York 2025 sessions virtually the whole Synod agreed on a matter of sexuality in a debate noted for its grace, good tone and willingness to work together. I can assure you this is not a parody, this actually happened.
So what are the details? What actually happened, what didn’t happen, how did it happen and what could it mean for the future of the long running Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process?
A Private Members Motion from Revd Mae Christie had been submitted back in 2022. The motion called for the removal of Issues in Human Sexuality from the vocations process. Issues was written in 1991 and put out as a statement by the House of Bishops. It includes much language and thinking that was unpleasant at the time and indefensible now. Somehow it took on a larger life, transitioning without much due process to becoming a requirement for all wishing to train for ordination to sign up to. We won’t go into the detail of all that was wrong with Issues, if you know you know, if you don’t you have been spared.
The retirement of Issues from the vocations process had been promised in the February 2023 debate on LLF. However, it would only be removed once something to replace it had been drawn up by the House of Bishops. That has proved more complicated than expected, and two years have passed with the much awaited replacement always just on the horizon, but often not getting any closer. With a lack of progress on replacing Issues, and its continued use in the vocations process, the Private Members Motion came to Synod with significant backing of the Together on General Synod (TOGS) group.
At General Synod there is as much work done outside the debating chamber as in it. The chamber is for speeches and voting, the formal and official work. Outside are the discussions in quiet corners and the relationship building during a tea break. This is where some of the most fruitful work of the Synod happens, and where the ground was prepared to find a route through that all could accept to remove a widely criticised document.
The sticking point with the motion was that removing Issues wasn’t the problem, it was what happened next. Some conservatives feared that it would lead to a completely unregulated situation for ordinands. Into this gap came the suggestion, long advocated by Canon Neil Patterson (Chair of the Together for the Church of England charity), of using the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (GPCC) as an interim replacement until the House of Bishops devised something permanent to take its place. This was the key that unlocked everything. The GPCC cover a wide range of things that order the life of the clergy, not just sex and relationships but also expectations about money, drugs and alcohol, and personal conduct. Expecting ordinands to live consistently with them is like asking medical students to work within the code of conduct that doctors are required to follow. The GPCC works by signposting to different documents, such as the Ordinal, canon law, and statements from the House of Bishops. As such it does not, of itself, state any definition of marriage. There are not at this point any further consequences; any changes to allow clergy same sex marriage will need to happen through due process at a later date.
A conservative concern was that removing Issues might hasten moves towards clergy same sex marriage without any due process being observed. To counter these it was explained, including several times from leading progressive voices, that deciding to remove Issues made no changes to the wider framework of rules governing conduct. The 1999 House of Bishops Statement on Marriage, Canon B30 on Marriage, and the 2014 Declaration on Clergy Same Sex Marriage were not up for discussion on this occasion. In removing Issues from the vocations process Synod did that and only that. There are not at this point any further consequences, any changes to allow clergy same sex marriage will need to happen through due process at a later date. That this was made clear does not mean that Together is not working towards delivering clergy same-sex marriage, just that the removal of Issues from the vocations process is a limited step forward on that longer road to full inclusion. Rumours that progressives on Synod have “given up” on clergy same-sex marriage or equal marriage should not be believed.
Discussions on substantial points of disagreement remain under discussion within LLF working groups. These areas include how to move forward on clergy same-sex marriage, how to fully roll out the Prayers of Love and Faith, and what pastoral reassurance could be put into place to allow the highest possible level of communion between groups in the church that differ on these matters. Those serving on these working groups say that relationships across the theological divides are working well, and the willingness to work together to reach a more settled position seems to be growing.
We should be realistic, though, that the removal of Issues was the lowest of low hanging fruit. While it took sensitive and creative thinking to find a way to achieve it, there was a willingness from all sides from the start to get the job done. Other goals on the path to full inclusion for LGBTQIA+ people will not be as easy. But there is a hope that the manner in which Synod came together to do something positive will have built up trust that we can work in this way. Those on the working groups will be heartened that hostilities did not break out on the floor of Synod, that the essential work in the dining halls and quiet corners patiently laid the ground for broad agreement. We hope that this will encourage them and the House of Bishops to be bolder and optimistic that the final pieces of the LLF jigsaw can be put together, that ways forward that honour all can be slotted into place without rough edges. The working groups continue, and the House of Bishops will have a meeting in October to make decisions to bring to the next Synod meeting in February. The Issues debate provides a platform on which to build, and we hope shows a greater degree of trust from which to stretch that bit further in building consensus.
Thinking back on the last few days we can see a movement of the Spirit has overcome the hurt of past debates, and encouraged the removal of a document which has caused so much pain and dismay over the years. Let’s pray that the Spirit continues her creative healing work, that we can have more days like this one when barriers come down and agreement is reached.
Leave a Reply