LLF: Recent Past, Present & Future – Part One

This is the first in a three-part series. You can read part two here and part three here or the full article here.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Shortly before General Synod, in the light of what I had earlier written at the start of the discernment process concerning what was needed from the bishops and possible ways forward, I argued for a pause rather than a rush to judgment in the form of a vote. This did not happen and now, a month on from the marathon debate spread over two days (and able to viewed here and here) and with a meeting of the College of Bishops imminent on Thursday 23rd March, it is perhaps good to take stock on where we are in three parts:

  1. Look back at what the bishops proposed and their original motion (passed with one amendment by 250 members for to 181 against and with 10 abstentions, though only just in the House of Laity where the vote was basically 52/48) and the reception of it particularly in the light of the voting in Synod.
  2. Look at some key theological and legal issues particularly given the Cornes amendment (to “endorse the decision of the College and the House of Bishops not to propose any change to the doctrine of marriage, and their intention that the final version of Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England”) added to that original motion by Synod. 
  3. Look ahead at some of the challenges facing us as a church, particularly the bishops seeking to implement their response post-Synod. 

Looking back – The Bishops’ Response to LLF and Synod’s Response to the Bishops

Personally, one of the biggest disappointments I felt about the Bishops’ response to LLF was that it lacked a clearly articulated, substantial theological rationale for their proposals which drew on the work of LLF and sought to locate the bishops’ approach within the wider theological disagreements that LLF mapped out. As I have sought to understand the bishops’ proposals in relation to commending Prayers of Love and Faith and why so many bishops who hold to traditional teaching have, it seems, supported them, I have tried to construct a case for them that might be heard by those who feel compelled to resist their proposals. In so doing I have drawn on their original paper with its response to LLF and also later comments such as the account given by the Bishop of London to General Synod and especially the letter written by the Bishop of Coventry (who chaired the LLF process) to his diocese after the bishops’ response was published.

Ten years ago, I co-edited The Evangelical Alliance’s resource, Biblical and pastoral responses to homosexuality. In that we moved beyond the simple previous binary distinction which is often made in relation to sexuality, especially homosexuality, between orientation and practice and the judgment that while homosexual orientation should not be condemned, all homosexual practice was wrong. Drawing on the work of Mark Yarhouse we highlighted that “orientation” included attraction, orientation and identity and in relation to practice we distinguished between relationships and practice. We summed up this new 5-fold category in these terms (p 28):

There are thus ­five distinct categories which need to be considered if we are to understand (homo)sexuality:

  • Attraction – our sexual feelings and interests
  • Orientation – a perceived settled pattern to our sexual attractions
  • Identity – a label to identify ourselves in terms of our sexuality
  • Behaviour – our sexual activity
  • Relationship – a central, defi­ning intimate relationship

In relation to this categorisation, it seems to me that the bishops, aided by the LLF resources, are being driven by two fundamental concerns with which it might be hoped (almost?) all would at least broadly have some sympathy.

Firstly, in relation to the first three categories that those who experience same-sex attraction or orientation and/or who identify as gay, lesbian or bi have been – and often continue to be – treated badly by the church. As a result, they feel rejected and often keep their distance from the church’s life even if they are followers of Jesus and have been committed in the past to sharing in the church’s life and mission. Faced with this reality, the church needs to repent, apologise, and change so as to be more clearly welcoming.

Secondly, in relation to the last of the five categories, that many of these people are in (or seek to be in) some form of “central, defining intimate relationship”. This is often now legally recognised as a civil partnership or civil marriage.  Such relationships embody goods, involve embracing moral disciplines, and display a range of virtues which they require and whose nurture and cultivation they enable. The church has, however, failed to acknowledge this adequately, or even at all, in the past and thereby further alienated those in such relationships. This has also meant that those, both Christians and non-Christians, in such relationships and those among their family and friends who see the goods, moral disciplines, and virtues present in them cannot understand why the church apparently does not see them. They are often, as a result, confused and angered that the church appears, in Rowan Williams’ words, to hold that these relationships “have the nature of sin and nothing else”, a moral assessment which they, like him, can only view as “unreal and silly” or even, increasingly, as immoral (“The Body’s Grace”).

Alongside this, thirdly, the bishops are clear that all Christians are called to “walk together” as brothers and sisters united to one another in Christ by faith and baptism and to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). They have sought to agree proposals that might enable the highest degree of communion possible across our deep differences which are set out in both the LLF resources and the range of responses to them captured in Listening with Love and Faith.

These three convictions have sadly often got lost in the focus on specifics but they are ones which all of us - particularly those of us who cannot accept the bishops’ proposals - need to engage with and they need to shape any alternative way forward.

One such alternative of course was the proposal the bishops brought after the Shared Conversations in GS2055. Although it was lost (by 7 votes) in the House of Clergy and thus seen as a total failure, those proposals had an overall majority across Synod of 58 (60 if you correct for the one bishop who admitted he pressed the wrong button!), not much smaller than the 69 for the current proposal. GS2055 spoke of the need for “interpreting the existing law and guidance to permit maximum freedom within it, without changes to the law, or the doctrine of the Church” (para 22) and later commended “an unambiguous position on doctrine in this matter while enabling a generous freedom for pastoral practice that does not directly and publicly undermine it” (para 65). In many ways what is being proposed is in line with this stance but with a key shift which it appears is now thought legitimate when it was not before: GS2055 considered and rejected (paras 40-43) any new forms of service but we now have such services including of blessing as part of Prayers of Love and Faith (rather than, for example, as the South African bishops have, subsequently done, “accepted that we are not of one mind on this matter. The divisions within the Synod of Bishops reflect the divisions in the Church as a whole, and we are not at peace with one another on this issue” so what is needed is “guidelines on the form of prayers we are to use” in private contexts where there could be “prayers of affirmation and acknowledgement for all faithful Anglicans with which all of us can agree”).

For me, and the votes in Synod and wider reactions suggests for many others, there are at least two significant problems with the bishops’ proposals and these can be related to the last two of the 5 categories listed above. Firstly, they have as yet totally failed to address the crucial question of sexual behaviour and the Bible’s teaching and consequent church teaching about sexual immorality. Secondly, they have also failed to give a convincing account of how the relationship of marriage as the church has received it and they have reaffirmed it should be related to these other patterns of relationship with their particular goods, disciplines and virtues. Instead, they have simply asserted that there is a need “to uphold and celebrate the Christian vision and inherent goodness of faithful and permanent relationships in both marriage and other committed relationships between two people” (Bishop of London) or that they want to “joyfully affirm and…acknowledge in church, stable, committed relationships between two people – including same-sex relationships” (GS 2289, p. 1). Aware of this challenge, they have sought to distinguish “holy matrimony” from civil marriage as mutually exclusive concepts and institutions and seemed to suggest that as long as they are not claimed to be “holy matrimony” the church can celebrate, affirm, acknowledge and bless a variety of forms of such intimate relationships. As I set out in some detail previously, the bishops’ new approach here is significantly at variance with past statements (and in apparent tension with the Bishop of London’s claim at General Synod that “There is no question of reneging on the validity” of the understanding that “opposite sex couples who have been civilly married are understood as being married in the sight of God and of the Church”) and creates major problems.

In terms of reception of the proposals, although there has been barely two months to consider them, a pattern is emerging from both the Synod debate and voting patterns and wider responses. Broadly speaking, there have been few who have welcomed the proposal as providing a coherent, convincing, or politically stable compromise to hold together people across the well-established polarised perspectives. Among those seeking change the proposals have been accepted as a step (for some small, for some more significant) in the right direction but there is little sign of them being ready to lessen campaigns for further steps. Among those committed to current teaching and practice, the proposals have been seen by most as a step too far not only by those in the Church of England but across the global Anglican Communion as shown by responses from the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA), Evangelical Fellowship of the Anglican Communion (EFAC) and the leadership of various provinces such as Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Chile and South East Asia.

The debate at General Synod and votes of 450 representatives across all 3 Houses are difficult to summarise and what follows highlights a number of features explored in more detail here. There were 18 amendments voted on (13 moved by supporters of current teaching and 5 moved by those seeking change) covering a range of matters of substance and process. A brief summary of some of the key points evident from more detailed analysis would be that

  • only one of the amendments (the Cornes amendment, discussed more below) was accepted, and this by only two votes in the House of Laity.
  • all others were rejected by both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy but 4 were passed by the House of Laity in addition to the one accepted by the other two Houses.
  • in the final vote those who supported the Cornes amendment overwhelmingly voted against while those rejecting it voted overwhelmingly for the motion as amended.
  • the votes of those Synod members who also voted on GS2055 signal that among clergy and laity most of those who rejected it now support these proposals but most of those who accepted it now reject these proposals.
  • although the bishops were solidly against all the amendments proposed except the one they accepted, and only 4 voted against the final motion with 2 abstaining, they were far from voting en bloc. Only 2 other bishops followed the Archbishops in voting against every defeated amendment and for Cornes. In fact, 19 bishops voted for at least one of the conservative-sponsored amendments with 4 others abstaining on at least one. There were also 6 bishops who voted for at least one or more revisionist-sponsored amendments with 7 others abstaining on at least one and, significantly, 14 of them voted against and 4 abstained on the Cornes amendment that was passed.
  • In relation to the Cornes amendment, looking at the votes in the houses of clergy and laity by diocese, in 8 dioceses both houses supported and in 5 dioceses both houses opposed with all others having one or both houses tied (17 dioceses) or one house supporting and one opposing (13 dioceses). In total there were 15 dioceses where the clergy opposed the Cornes amendment and 15 where the laity were opposed and 17 dioceses where clergy supported it and 20 where the laity supported it. Totalling across clergy and laity votes in each diocese, in 22 dioceses most members voted for (but in 9 only by a majority of 1), 2 were tied while 20 had majorities against (but in 8 only by a majority of 1).
  • In relation to the final motion, both houses supported it in 11 dioceses and both rejected it in 5 dioceses, with 19 where one house was tied and 8 in which one house supported and one house opposed. So, there were 10 dioceses where the clergy opposed the final motion and 16 where the laity were opposed compared to 23 dioceses where clergy supported it and 18 where the laity supported it. If we look at the total votes across both houses in each diocese, in 23 dioceses most members voted for (but in 7 only by a majority of 1), 4 were tied while 16 had majorities against (but in 6 only by a majority of 1).

It seems clear, in summary, that although the amended motion was passed in all 3 houses and overall by a majority of 58% for to 42% against, there are a significant proportion of Synod members (likely well over 1/3 and outside of the episcopacy perhaps 40%-45%) who are resolutely opposed to the proposals. In contrast there is another significant proportion who, though supportive, are unhappy about maintaining the doctrine of marriage and that doctrine constraining the proposals. This level of disagreement or more is found in almost all diocesan groupings with only just over a quarter of dioceses having both clergy and lay representatives supportive of the final motion and just over half the dioceses where the elected representatives were supportive and nearly 40% where they were opposed to the final motion.

In considering how to develop their proposals, the bishops need to consider this rather precarious political situation. They also have to consider the implications of their commitment, now supported by Synod, to continue to uphold the doctrine of marriage. The Cornes amendment emphasises that the bishops have to convincingly show – legally and theologically – that in their proposals, once finalised, they have successfully accomplished “their intention that the final version of Prayers of Love and  Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England”. Presumably this applies also to their new pastoral guidance.  This, given their commitment not to change the doctrine of marriage, raises a number of significant issues which are explored in the next article.

Andrew Goddard
This is the first in a three-part series. You can read part two here and part three here.

Leave a comment