ViaMedia

Cooking with Love and Faith

Written by

Helen King

in

, , ,

by Nic Tall, member of General Synod and National Coordinator of Together for the Church of England

The General Synod has met again. Once again, it has debated the current stage of Living in Love and Faith (LLF), once again the plans to move forward have been approved in all three Houses of the Synod, and once again this permission to proceed still has a significant minority of Synod in opposition to the proposals.

One aspect of the debate was the selection of metaphors used in speeches – Fortnum and Mason port and Stilton hampers, Argos flat pack furniture, LLF being like a bus with some on board and others feeling run over. One metaphor which came up in several speeches, all opposed to the proposals, was that it wasn’t “oven ready”. That the phrase was used several times implies co-ordinated comms work from conservatives literally speaking from the same centrally pre-prepared text. “Not oven-ready” expresses a concern that there hasn’t been enough work done, that proposed pastoral guidance needs more time and more consultation before it is fit for purpose, and we should stick with Issues in Human Sexuality until its replacement.

Since coming home from the debate, I have been thinking through the questions of process and this culinary metaphor, and I have been comparing the LLF process to baking bread. We have been following a recipe, collecting and mixing ingredients, kneading the dough, stepping back and leaving it to rise for a while, before returning to knock it back, squeezing the air out, more pushing, pulling and stretching before leaving it to rise again. A good baker knows that a time of proving before further kneading helps the structure and flavour of the bread, but repeat that process too often and you ruin it.

Before I talk about how we have been cooking the bread of LLF, I want to think about how the House of Bishops prepared the meal that is Issues in Human Sexuality.  I recently spoke with someone who was in the room when Issues was written.  It was a document purely created by the House of Bishops, who we should remember at that point included no women and no openly LGBT+ people. There was no Programme Board, no working groups, no consultation with stakeholder groups or involvement with the wider church at all. The entire process came from the House of Bishops discussing among itself and then putting out its thoughts as a teaching document, not intended as the policy statement that Issues later became. The preface stated “We cannot expect all to agree with our conclusion and, indeed, in our discussions we encountered a wide variety of opinions… It is our hope that this Statement – which we do not pretend to be the last word on the subject – will do something ‘to help forward a general process, marked by greater trust and openness, of Christian reflection on the subject of human sexuality’”. Issues was cooked by a small group of episcopal chefs, and was not intended to be the final meal. More than thirty years since it was first served up it now become stale and few find it appetising.

Given the lack of process leading to the half-baked Issues, what has been happening in the kitchen to cook up its replacement? LLF began with panels of experts gathering to compile material around theology, biblical studies, history and more which formed the LLF book, videos, podcasts and course. These were then made available to the whole church to study, discuss and pray about. From late 2020 through to mid 2022, all policy work was paused while the resources were used at the grassroots in parishes, benefices and deaneries. In the baking metaphor, this was a period of the LLF dough being left to rise. Then there was a consultation, the largest in the C of E’s history, capturing the feedback of over 6000 who took part in the course and following up with focus groups to drill down deeper into grassroots opinion. The results were a majority wanting liturgical affirmation of same-sex relationships, a quick decision so everyone knew where they stood and a strong desire for the church to remain together.

Through the autumn of 2022, the House of Bishops developed their proposals, which were modest but deliverable and brought to General Synod in February 2023. Synod welcomed the proposals through a vote passed in all three Houses. There has since been further work considering refinement and implementation, including consultation with stakeholder groups, small working groups and facilitated conversations bringing together people with very different theological convictions, in-person talks with representatives from different constituencies, theological input from the Faith and Order Commission, legal support from the Church of England’s Legal Office and a further substantial debate in General Synod in November 2023 affirming the ongoing direction of travel. There have been a ‘Next Steps Group’ and a ‘Moving Forward’ video.

In preparation for the July 2024 Synod, there were different working groups, more stakeholder consultations, a Programme Board, further meetings of the College and House of Bishops and more input from FAOC. And then at the most recent Synod a third major vote has yet again passed in all three Houses to affirm the ongoing direction of travel. We can safely say that the LLF dough has been thoroughly kneaded, shaped and proved. When we compare the many years and wide consultation of the LLF process to the short bishops-only cooking up of Issues, we can be sure that we are in a much better place that will be more widely owned by the whole church once this dish comes out of the oven.

We also have to remember who the chefs are in preparing this meal. The commending of liturgy and the issuing of pastoral guidance is the responsibility of the House of Bishops.  When Issues was published, it did not require Synodical approval; it was a document from the Bishops. Its replacement will also not need the approval of Synod. The House of Bishops have been much more sensitive this time around in ensuring wide consultation and involving people outside their number. The new pastoral guidance will not be something created in a closed room by a small group of outwardly straight men and then passed down from on high. It has been a collaborative process, with the bishops supported by Synod, FAOC, stakeholders, the Legal Office and all our parishes and deaneries who invested time with engaging.

But now it is down to the House of Bishops to complete the process by putting it in the oven to bake. That is their job, and it is not for the rest of us to interfere. Neither will it help if we insist on continually opening the oven door to check how it’s getting on. Too many cooks will only spoil the meal.

So, once the well-prepared dough of LLF that we currently have has been properly baked, brought out and left to cool, I hope we will be able to gather together to enjoy the breaking, sharing and eating. And I hope that will be around one table, where all are called, including our LGBTQIA+ family members who are usually only offered crumbs under the table. I hope also that our more conservative family members will also be at the feast around the one table, and not feel that they have to sit in another room apart from the rest of us.

I hope that shared meal comes very soon, as many in the church, especially LGBTQIA+ people, are hungry and are needing to be fed.

Comments

4 responses to “Cooking with Love and Faith”

  1. R Prieto avatar
    R Prieto

    You’re obvously right that a 48 % of the Synod membership in opposition is “a significant minority of Synod”, almost half actually.. Maybe “not oven ready” is just a reminder that this is quite far from the 2/3 cononically required. The transparency of the bishops cooking methods has, if any thing, got worse since Issues, in their dedication now to circunventing the canons. Enthusiastically endorsing this episcopal coup d’état is bound to lead to regrets in the future. And answering those who cannot in conscience agree to disagree with “yes, you can” every time they say it, might be good for a pantomime, but not for sitting at table together, no matter how much one would wish for it.

    Reply
  2. Nicky Lord avatar
    Nicky Lord

    Thank you Nic, for this well informed, thoughtful article. I hope this ” meal” comes soon , as many people are indeed “hungry “. Disagreements over ” ingredients ” and “menu” threaten to overwhelm church with fallible disputable doctrine over the call to love , feed, and welcome all.

    Reply
  3. Jonathan Chaplin avatar
    Jonathan Chaplin

    Thanks, Nic. This is a very clear statement of how progressives read the events of the last few years, and I can entirely see its plausibility for those longing and working for change. I am also reading other narratives from the conservative side, retracing exactly the same events. Here’s where I think we now are. There is already an unbridgeable gulf between the two sides on the substantive issue of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage (and there’s little point in rehearsing that further, which, however both sides were still doing in York). Now there is another unbridgeable gulf between the two narratives of how we have got to where we are, so that the two sides can’t even give a shared account of processes they have each been closely involved in, sometimes sitting around the same tables over extended periods of time. The latter gulf includes unbridgeable accounts over whether proper governance procedures have been followed in getting us to this point. As you depict it, everything has been done decently and in order, indeed with enormous progressive patience; and conservatives are engaged in anti-democratic (and, for some progressives, dishonest and/or manipulative) delaying tactics that disrespect clear and repeated majority votes in GS. To conservatives, the bishops and many of their progressive supporters, are in denial – for many, dishonest denial – that PLF (and, even more, standalone services) amount to a de facto change in the church’s doctrine of marriage, meaning that proper procedure (approval via B2) has been circumvented, so that even majority votes on PLF cannot be taken as final, even legitimate (because, in part, based on false or withheld information). Progressives unwillingness to engage on that specific point is felt by them as a form of gaslighting (‘your repeatedly expressed concerns can be ignored because we know they are either ignorant or dishonest’). Conservatives even dispute your reading of the 2022 consultation as confirming a ‘majority wanting liturgical affirmation of same-sex relationships’. There is a fourth unbridgeable gulf: over whether these changes are fundamental or are things over which Anglicans can properly disagree. I now see no prospect whatsoever that any of these rival narratives will ever be bridged. I say that with deep dismay. But I now see no alternative either to some formal structural separation (which is already happening, so that it is pointless to ‘hope’ that conservatives will ‘remain at the table’), even schism, or to yet more acrimonious attritional warfare with no prospect of a convergence of narratives – no alternative, that is, other than each side saying to the other: ‘If you would only adopt our convictions and/or narratives, we can find agreement’. If I’m right, surely it’s far better to name and own the intractability (even, perhaps, accept shared responsibility for it) and work as respectfully as possible towards the first option rather than condemning each other to years of the second? As someone put it to me once about divorce: ‘would you rather come from a broken family or live in one’. I would love to be proved wrong.

    Reply
  4. John Alderman avatar
    John Alderman

    This, despite the sadness of its conclusions, is the clearest, most honest, pragmatic summary of where we are at just now and continuing to “square the circle” in the name of what would only be a specious unity, seems to me the most unedifying prospect

    Reply

Any thoughts?

More posts