In July the present General Synod of the Church of England came to an end. A new one will be elected in the autumn and inaugurated by the King in November. A key part of its agenda will be to consider the unfinished business concerning marriage and human sexuality left over from the Prayers of Love and Faith process which formed a central part of the business of the previous Synod.
The problem that the new Synod will face in dealing with this unfinished business from the last Synod was helpfully articulated by Canon Vaughan Roberts in his speech in opposition to the private member’s motion put forward by Professor Helen King calling for Synod to agree ‘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.’
In his speech against this motion, which, in an amended form, was eventually lost by three votes in the House of Bishops, Roberts declared that it would be a mistake to think that Synod could simply affirm both those who engaged in sexually active same-sex relationships because they believe that God approves of them, and those like him who conscientiously refuse to engage in them because they believe that God opposes them.
He said, ‘These are first order issues on both sides of these debates. 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 - because in affirming one you are not going to affirm the other. In affirming one kind of lifestyle you are not going to affirm my kind of lifestyle. You will deeply discourage me. Let's face reality - 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.’
So how might the next Synod make progress in the next five years based on a recognition that there are those in the Church of England who hold fundamentally opposed positions on the matter? Is there a way of allowing both sides to achieve what they want?
I would argue that the answer to this question is ‘Yes.’ There is a way forward and it is one that those on Roberts’ side of the debate have indicated they would be willing to accept.
To understand why this way forward could work we need first to be clear what the two sides in the Church of England’s debate over marriage and sexuality want.
What the liberal side wants to see is two things: first, the Church of England allowing same-sex marriages to be conducted by Church of England clergy in Church of England churches and, second, those who are in same-sex relationships being allowed to be ordained.
What conservatives like Roberts want to see is one of two things. Ideally, they would like the developments desired by the liberals not to happen and for the existing provision for the blessing of same-sex couples in church services to be withdrawn. However, if the developments do happen and the provision for the blessing of same-sex couples remains in place, conservatives have identified six needs that need to be met in order for them to remain in the Church of England with integrity. These can be set out as follows:
Need 1 (which is the foundation for the other five) is for a form of permanent and legally enforceable provision to be provided for those who uphold the historic orthodox position on human sexual identity and behaviour, as taught in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the teaching of the Fathers and Councils of Early Church that are agreeable to these Scriptures, the historic Anglican formularies and Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10. In specific terms this position is that:
- God has made all human beings male or female according to their biology;
- God has established marriage as an exclusive and lifelong relationship between one man and one woman;
- Marriage thus defined is the sole legitimate setting for sexual activity and the procreation of children, and all forms of sexual intercourse before or outside marriage are forms of sin of which people are called to repent;
- It is not permissible for clergy or others to teach otherwise, or for the blessing of those in same-sex unions, or the ordination of those in such unions, to be permitted as part of the life of the Church.
The reason that permanent and legally enforceable provision is needed is because only this kind of provision can guarantee that there will in the long term still be a place in the Church of England for the orthodox position and those who uphold it.
Need 2 is that this provision will include the right for clergy and laity to come under the ordinary jurisdiction of an orthodox diocesan bishop who will in their teaching, practice, and personal behaviour adhere to the four theological principles set out above. This need reflects the traditional belief that clergy and laity should have oversight from an orthodox diocesan bishop, which in the present context means a diocesan bishop who upholds the historic orthodox position on human sexuality.
Need 3 is that this provision will include the right for clergy, parishes and Bishop’s Mission Orders (BMOs) to be part of dioceses (and therefore archdeaconries and deaneries) where these four principles are upheld and for Wardens to be the officers of a bishop who upholds them. This need is a development of need 2 and reflects the belief that what is required for historic orthodoxy to flourish in the future is not just orthodox parishes and diocesan bishops, but also orthodox dioceses committed to the four theological principles in need 1 and therefore able to provide orthodox parishes and their clergy with a network of fellowship and mutual support.
Need 4 is that, because they will still be part of the Church of England, provision will be made that parishes and BMOs that uphold the four principles will continue to have, in perpetuity, either use or ownership of the parish church, vicarage and other church buildings, and will also have access in perpetuity to the historic assets of the Church of England. This will ensure that orthodox parishes and BMOs will continue to have the buildings and financial resources they require in order to engage in mission and ministry in the future.
Need 5 is that this provision will include the right for prospective ordinands to be placed under the care of a Diocesan Director of Ordinands who upholds these four principles, to be trained at a theological college or course where they are upheld, to be placed as a curate in a parish or BMO which upholds them, and to be ordained by a bishop who also upholds them. This need reflects the requirement for a continuing supply of clergy holding the orthodox position on human sexuality in order to staff orthodox parishes, BMOs and dioceses in the Church of England in the future.
Finally, need 6 is that this provision will include the right of a parish or BMO to have only candidates who uphold the four principles presented for consideration as an incumbent or priest in charge, and the right of a parish representative to veto any candidate who does not meet this criterion. This will ensure that orthodox parishes and BMOs will be served by orthodox ministers who will be available because of the fulfilment of need 5.
What is important to note is that all of these six needs could be met while still allowing liberals to have what they want. As I and others on the conservative side have pointed out, the way this could be achieved would be through a third province for conservatives to be created within the Church of England alongside the existing provinces of Canterbury and York.
The new province would be established through a measure passed by General Synod and an Order in Council, the amendment of Canon C.17 and the amendment of the Synodical Government Measure 1969. This legislation would contain a provision that it could not be repealed except with the consent of the province.
The province would come into being by means of parishes voting in their PCCs to leave their existing dioceses and transfer to a diocese in the new province instead. To give the new province stability, parishes would not be able to return to their previous diocese for a period of ten years. Apart from that requirement, parishes would be free to move from the provinces of Canterbury and York to the new province, or to move back the other way.
BMOs would also be entitled to decide to join the new province with their episcopal authorisation being transferred to a bishop of the new province.
Like the provinces of Canterbury and York, the new province would consist of parishes, deaneries, archdeaconries and dioceses. The number of dioceses that would initially be formed would obviously depend on how many parishes opted to join the new province, but one possible pattern would be for there to initially be four dioceses, one in the Southwest, one in the South and Southeast, one in the Midlands and East Anglia, and one in the North. Chaplaincies in Europe would come under the diocese for the South and Southeast.
Each diocese would initially have one bishop and one of these would be the archbishop of the province. There would be no fixed archiepiscopal diocese and the office of archbishop would subsequently be held by the senior bishop of the province. A parish church in each diocese would act as the cathedral.
The doctrine of the new province would be that of the Church of England at the point of its formation, minus any elements that were supportive of same-sex relationships and gender transition.
The law of the province would be that of the Church of England at the point of its formation minus any elements that did not apply to the new and any elements that were supportive of same-sex relationships and gender transition.
The liturgy of the province would be the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the 1662 Ordinal and Common Worship. Any liturgy that had been introduced into Common Worship to mark same-sex relationships or gender transition would not be permissible.
The forms of ordained and lay ministry currently in the Church of England would continue in the new province. Women would therefore be eligible to serve as deacons, priests and bishops. Parishes unable to accept the ministry of women as priests or bishops could request to come under the oversight of a male bishop who shared their convictions.
Candidates for ordained ministry would continue to be selected using Bishops Advisory Panels but the selectors would be members of the new province. The dioceses would establish a list of approved colleges and courses for ordination training and might also establish their own training courses.
Because clergy in the province would be ministers of the Church of England, they would continue to be eligible to serve as Anglican chaplains in hospitals, schools, prisons and the armed forces.
The new province would be governed by a Convocation consisting of the bishops and elected members of the clergy and an elected House of Laity. Rules for election would be the same as for elections to the current General Synod.
The members of the Convocation and of the House of Laity would be members of the General Synod of the Church of England. They would speak and vote at Synod and in the House of Bishops on matters of common concern to the Church of England as a whole. They would not speak on matters pertaining to the Provinces of Canterbury and York unless invited to do so and would not be able to vote on such matters. Legislation passed by the General Synod would only apply to the Province of Mercia if there was specific agreement from the province that it should, with appropriate modifications if necessary. This would be similar to the way in which existing measures of the Church of England can be adopted with modifications for the Diocese in Europe, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
The Convocation and the House of Laity would also form the Provincial Synod of the. new province. This would meet separately from the General Synod to consider matters concerning the province. It would have the same law-making powers as the General Synod but could only create law on matters relating to the province.
The province would remain part of the established church. Parishioners would therefore continue to have the right to worship and to be baptized, married or buried in or from their parish church in the province in accordance with the law applicable within the province. Bishops in the province would be appointed by the king on the basis of names agreed by a Crown Nominations Commission consisting of representatives from the province. Legislation from the Provincial Synod would need to receive royal assent after having been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee in Parliament
Because of its adherence to traditional Anglican teaching and practice, the new province would be able to maintain close links with the majority of Anglican churches round the world represented by the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches and GAFCON who would be unwilling to maintain ties with Anglicans in England who had decided to accept either same-sex blessings, same-sex marriage, or the ordination of those in same-sex relationships.
A new provincial arrangement in the Church of England along the lines just sketched out would be in accordance with existing Church of England ecclesiology and would enable both sides of the current divide over marriage to have what they want. Conservatives would be able to permanently maintain traditional teaching and practice in their own province and liberals would be able to introduce the changes they want to see in the provinces of Canterbury and York. In addition, as much unity as possible would be maintained in that all sides would remain part of the Church of England without anyone needing to leave.
