No More Delay: A Call to General Synod

by the Revd Dr Charlie Bell, Fellow at Girton College Cambridge, and Assistant Curate, St John the Divine, Kennington

I’ll admit to approaching Synod this week with rather mixed emotions. This is the case not least because I’m not a member – so I’ll be sitting on the side-lines, somewhat glad I’m not in the debating chamber, and yet also finding myself in that position that so many of us find ourselves in: watching other people make decisions about our lives.

The sense of powerlessness amongst LGBTQI folk has been palpable as Living in Love and Faith dragged the Church of England into conversations many didn’t want to have, for many different reasons. Yet there was always going to be an endpoint, and here we are.

What’s on ‘offer’ from the bishops is, in a sense, staggering from two directions. The wet-behind-the-ears young upstart me who despaired at the pathetic episcopal Valentine’s day poison-pen letter issued in response to the introduction of same-sex marriage back in 2014 would not believe we now have blessings on the table. Frankly, I’m not sure I would have believed they’d be on the table when the House of Clergy gave the bishops a bloody nose in Synod in 2017. Yet looking at where we stand now, I can’t help but be disappointed that that’s all we’re being offered, after all this time, after all this expended energy – I can’t help but be staggered that this is all the bishops, corporately, think we are worth.

I care little for whether the draft prayers are blessing the people or the relationship – the fact of a blessing says that something is ‘good’, and for years we have heard that our relationships are no such thing. LGBTQI clergy have been hounded out of jobs; LBGTQI laity have had doors slammed in their faces; we have been told to have ‘warmer hearts and cooler heads’ whilst our entire lives, loves, and very existence has been trashed. We have been told to stop calling ourselves gay, and instead use whatever terminology is foisted upon us by those who know better. It is only in the church that those who are doing the oppressing get to determine what the bounds of that oppression are, what homophobia is, what transphobia is. Meanwhile the world looks on, and cannot understand how we have gotten ourselves into this mess. The Church of England is seen as prejudiced, hateful, unwelcoming – however much we tell ourselves blessings is a big step.

So I come to these proposals with anger, certainly, and yet with a sense of realism, too.

The problem is that – however much we hate it – the next step in this process is political. That is simply a fact – this is now about votes. It is abundantly clear that nothing more than what is on the table could get through Synod, however much we wish it could. And that hurts, because here we are again being told to wait, wait, wait. Oh for more bishops to speak in our favour in more than a whisper; oh for them to stop hiding behind procedure and speak prophetically.

And looking at the Questions for General Synod during this session, the sheer, prurient nastiness from some quarters continues. This does not look like a Synod that truly wants to apologise for the hurt done – that continues to be done – to LGBTQI Christians.

We know that the bishops will authorise some form of these prayers ‘for use come what may’, whatever happens at Synod. The key thing now is how they are ‘received’ at Synod, and let’s not be naïve in thinking that this week doesn’t matter for what the future looks like.

Self-professed conservatives seem divided, not least on whether same-sex relationships can ever be a good thing (however obscene that might sound to anyone who has ever met a gay, lesbian or bisexual person). Some ‘conservative’ bishops have offered a theological reflection on their concerns about equal marriage, yet this paper’s thinness of content perhaps belies the disagreements that remain beneath the surface in that camp. But notable is that even they are willing to say what would previously never have been said:

Same-sex relationships can, of course, be lifelong, loving, committed, faithful, and provide deep and enduring companionship. As such the church needs to find ways to recognise and welcome such relationships, without explicitly or implicitly changing her teaching by doing so. 

Yet the wider conservative response appears to be in one of two camps – delay, delay, delay, kick the can down the road yet again, or bizarre videos consisting primarily of weaponised prayer and threats to withhold money. In a sense, at least this mode of operation is finally out in the open. The threats have been there for years – the bishops have just been too scared to say anything.

The delaying tactics aren’t going to work: the prayers are going ahead. We know this. There will be procedural nonsense and attempts to water everything down. You can just imagine what is coming from the usual suspects.

Yet this is nothing more than a loud minority in the wider church that are excellent at getting themselves elected to stymie progress, and who have wasted our time for years.

For what it’s worth, I think these proposals are the next step on the road, and the destination is equal marriage. I strongly believe inclusive synod members should vote them through, even if the progressive amendments don’t pass. We can reason with people all we like, but it’s through experience that people change their minds. The minute we bless same-sex couples, people’s prejudice will be challenged by real, living people, right in front of them, living ordinary, faithful, loving, honest lives of love and faith, to coin a phrase.

Are these proposals enough? Absolutely they are not. Are they demeaning? Absolutely they are. Are they our best chance of changing the culture of the Church of England and creating an unstoppable momentum? I believe they are. If we vote them down, we simply provide ammunition for those who have always held the power over us. We won’t even be given the scraps, and the small but increasing group of genuinely supportive bishops will take the heat.

Make no mistake: the ‘conservatives’ will do anything to make these proposals fail, because they know this is a step on the road and not the end of the journey. They know that this is their last chance to hold back the floodgates. We have been held back long enough – enough of this.

But I would urge inclusive Synod members to make it abundantly clear that this is but a step on the road, and an unsatisfactory one at that. I would urge them to make it clear that if the new Pastoral Guidance is in the same vein as Issues in Human Sexuality, and if our clergy cannot marry according to their conscience, then the bishops will have betrayed us, again – and that there will be mutiny in the ranks. If the ‘conservatives’ won’t give us marriage, then they can hardly complain that sex outside of marriage is the next logical step. They made their bed.

The Bishop of London has said in response to a Question that:

The response of the bishops makes no proposals for further decision-making, nor does it have plans to do so. However, it is not within the bishops’ power to ensure or predict that there will never be further change in any direction.

Let’s be absolutely clear – there may be no ‘plans’ for further decision-making, but any bishop who thinks that this thin gruel of acceptance is the end of the road is in for a rather rude awakening. Unlike those who threaten to take away parish share, I don’t offer this as a threat – I offer it as a promise. The way forward is clear, and it is time bishops were held to account.

No more silence but much more honesty. Respect for theological differences of opinion. Freedom of conscience. No more punitive measures. And perhaps – at last – a recognition of the gift of LGBTQI people to the church.

Synod reps, I urge you to get this done. Say no to delay, and drag the Church of England on the first step of the journey. There is an inevitable finale to this particular spectacle, and that finale is full inclusion – maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday soon. This is a time for hope, and for new beginnings – Synod reps, you are the midwives of this new creation. God bless you in what you will do this week.

Comments

12 responses to “No More Delay: A Call to General Synod”

  1. Peter avatar
    Peter

    Charlie, the general conservative position is not as you describe it.

    We want to walk apart, or to use the jargon, we want differentiation. We would and will gladly work with anybody to achieve that outcome.

    Settlements are reached between opponents who agree to end the conflict. Surely that is the way forward.

    1. David Hawkins avatar
      David Hawkins

      I fondly imagined that Christianity was about right and wrong and not politics. The way my Church, the Church of England has rubbished the Sexual love of my LGBTQI sisters and brothers has to end and end soon.
      Scripture has some very negative things to say about Jews. Imagine for a moment if the Archbishop of Uganda talked about Jews the way he talks about Lesbian and Gay human beings.
      Would Archbishop Welby also sit on the fence ? Of course not !
      I suggest that Parliament removes the legal exemption that allows the Church of England to discriminate against Lesbian and Gay Christians.

    2. Steve avatar
      Steve

      The proposals are differentiation. Conservative clergy who do not wish to use the commended prayers can choose not to use them. If they wish to teach a traditional view of marriage from their pulpit they are able to do so. Nothing is proposed that will affect the day to day reality of mission and ministry for those clergy opposed to LGBTI+ inclusion, life continues as before. Perhaps the only difference is that they may be asked to administer the prayers, at which point they can demonstrate their differentiation by explaining why they would not do so.

      1. Helen King avatar
        Helen King

        Indeed, Steve, but not ‘structural’ differentiation of separate theological education, separate ordinations, separate confirmations, which is what (some?) conservatives apparently want.

      2. Peter avatar
        Peter

        You are presumably looking forward to an irenic and warm spirited General Synod this week when everybody realises the problems have been solved.

        I am not convinced you have judged the position accurately.

  2. Peter avatar
    Peter

    A necessary additional clarification. Charlie cites Andrew Goddard’s call for delay as as representative of the conservative position. Goddard is an academic eccentric. He will be calling for further discussion under any and all circumstances.

    He speaks for nobody but himself and the general conservative view is that he is a hindrance to what every last one of us wants which is an end to this quarrel

    1. Rob avatar
      Rob

      Then allow freedom of conscience, as with remarriage for divorcees. Conservatives can refuse to marry, liberals can allow.

      What happens to a person when they pass on is between that person and God, not anyone else. We were given consciences and intelligence for a reason, so that we can make our own minds up.

  3. Dr Clorinda Goodman avatar
    Dr Clorinda Goodman

    I’m no expert on these detailed arguments, but surely we see within the Anglican communion what amounts to a clash of cultures (Huntingdon?). So the root difficulty for the top brass is how to avoid a schism with the evangelicals, particularly those in Africa. Is maintaining notional unity more important than affirming God’s loving kindness to all the diversity of humanity within his creation?

  4. kiwianglo avatar

    What I want is justice, not sacrifice, says the Lord!

  5. Peter avatar
    Peter

    Helen, I believe your view is that the conservative position is over represented in Synod and if that is your view I can see why you would not support structural change/differentiation .

    I cannot myself see any evidence to support your premise that conservatives are over represented.

    1. Helen King avatar
      Helen King

      I have no idea whether or not they are over-represented, Peter, but I merely observe that there are different positions within Synod membership. Not all ‘liberals’ take the same view. Not all ‘conservatives’ think the answer is structural differentiation.

      1. Peter avatar
        Peter

        Helen, that is helpful. I guess we might know a little more by Friday. I wish you well for what will be a demanding week for you at Synod

Any thoughts?