A motion seeking support from the Church of England’s parliamentary body for “committed” and “intimate” same-sex relationships has failed to pass.
Prof Helen King’s Private Member’s Motion asked, “That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.”
As she was unable to attend the debate in person, her motion was presented to Synod by Prof Muriel Robinson on her behalf, who said it was about a “point of principle which does not rule out other convictions”.
“It’s not a debate about the Bible. Underlying it is the point that we have many different, rich, varied ways of engaging with and honouring the Bible,” she said.
Prof Robinson said the motion was not an attempt to preempt the new working group established earlier this year to continue the Church of England’s work on same-sex relationships and marriage following the end of the Living in Love (LLF) dialogue.
The winding down of LLF coincided with an admission from the House of Bishops that standalone services for same-sex blessings could not be introduced without following due legal process.
Prof Robinson said she did not want Monday’s session to be a “re-run” of the LLF debate that has dominated the Church of England for the last five years.
“The motion does not attempt to overturn any of the decisions we made in February … and it’s not - absolutely not - an attempt to redefine marriage,” she said.
“The motion is making a simple pastoral point - mainly that we talk a lot about clergy wellbeing but there are LGBTQ+ clergy, as well as those holding lay roles and in the pews, who are feeling demoralised and completely disregarded in the Church.
“They need us as a Synod to affirm their relationships and their callings, and value them as complete people, as part of a couple in a loving, faithful relationship.”
Opponents, however, called the motion “un-pastoral” and "ambiguous", particularly regarding its reference to intimacy.
Rev Jake Madin, from the Diocese of York, said the motion was “incompatible with our current doctrine on marriage”, which he pointed out is what Church of England clergy must swear to uphold.
Later in the debate, the motion was significantly amended to “recognise a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England” on same-sex relationships, and that “this includes views that affirm and views that reject” the position of the original motion.
Rev Mike Tufnell, of the Lantern Church in Dorset, said that both the original and amended motion were “problematic” as passing either one would communicate “something that is clearly contrary to our historic formularies”.
The “tragically bad timing” would “only set back further the rebuilding of trust” and “undermine the integrity” of the new working group “before it’s even begun”, he continued.
“Surely, as far as we can, we must seek to say what we mean and mean what we say. That is crucial for trust and trustworthiness to grow,” he said.
“Synod, surely after so much ambiguity, heartfelt anger, and acrimony on all sides this quinquennium, why would we end this five years with more?”
Helen King, a lay member from the Diocese of Oxford, also rejected both the original motion and amendment, likening the debate to “groundhog day”.
“I’m not sure any of us think we are in a good place right now but there is work underway into the next quinquennium ... it doesn’t need this motion for that work to continue,” she said.
“Let’s not harm each other and ourselves yet again [or] fail to learn from the past, and further damage relationships in the present, by voting for an amendment that oversimplifies and will underdeliver, or for a motion that just adds pain and hurt and more to confess for all of us.
“Please, Synod, let's decide to do this differently.”
Evangelical priest, Rev Vaughan Roberts, echoed a challenge he made to Synod in February when he called for “a completely new approach” to “avoid us going round and round again in the next synodical process".
“We do not agree, we will not agree, and we will not meet in the middle, and it will not be possible to affirm both,” he said on Monday.
“This amended motion attempts to affirm everyone but let’s face reality: we will not make progress in the next quinquennium unless we recognise we can’t do that.”
He said the decision before the Church was whether to choose a “winner takes all” approach or “find another way - an honest way”.
The Bishop of Birmingham, Michael Volland, highlighted the difficulty in asking Synod to “recognise a legitimate range of theological perspectives” given the Church of England’s official doctrine on marriage.
He said there was “a risk of confusion if we identify a range of theological perspectives as all being legitimate”.
“Although we might each legitimately hold our particular view, the use of the word ‘legitimate’ ... sets us up for ambiguity and confusion in practice on the ground,” he said.
The amended motion failed to secure the required majority across all three Houses of Synod. Although it was passed by clergy and laity, it was rejected by the House of Bishops 14-11 against, with four abstentions.
