So, I was asked once again, ‘Where are things now on LLF and prayers of blessing for those in committed same-sex relationships, as voted for in the February Synod?’ 

I should say at the outset that there are very few people who ask me that. In my church (the parish church, middle of the road, robed choir, mostly quite an old congregation – and I too have my bus pass now) there are almost no enquiries about this particular aspect of my life, and the last time I was asked and answered, the response was a frustrated cry of ‘Oh for goodness sake they’re not still going on about that??’

But those who ask deserve an answer. The trouble with answering questions like this is that, at the moment, everything I do comes with some sort of confidentiality alert. I’ve survived all three meetings of the Living with Difference subgroup, which are billed as feeding into the meetings of the College and the House of Bishops. I don’t think that anything there, in a room containing various people from either end of the spectrum of views on same sex relationships, came as a surprise. The meetings were run with the usual mix of everyone sitting in a circle and being asked to say something, chats in pairs, chats in pairs which then become fours, and so on. The rules were St Michael’s House Protocols – so, ok to share what is said but not to attribute anything – but those were quickly changed to a wider ban on saying very much at all. 

I think I am safe to repeat things I myself said: so, at one point we were asked to go back and come up with some responses in the subgroups formed in the previous meeting, of conservative/middle/progressive (all those labels could of course be challenged), but I asked what seemed to have been an unanticipated question – could I change groups? Much hilarity and enthusiastic gestures of welcome from the conservatives. It was good to have a moment of humour and, indeed, a reminder that we can change. No, I explained, I wanted to be in the ‘middle’ group because I was experiencing such a bad fit between my Synod existence (motions, amendments, standing orders, Canon law etc) and my normal church existence (nobody sees what was passed at February Synod as an issue). So I had a spell in the ‘middle’, and it felt fine. 

Then yesterday I had another meeting in London, this time as a representative of one of the ‘stakeholder groups’. Assorted inclusive groups were meeting members of the LLF team, and then today assorted conservative groups do the same. It’s a repeat of the meetings from a year or so ago, only with some different configurations of groups. Once again we were told to observe confidentiality. I can see why, because the LLF team wanted to have our reactions to various things which may or may not be presented to Synod in November. However, as the House of Bishops doesn’t meet until 9 October, and hasn’t yet made up its collective mind about how it will take forward whatever was discussed in the College of Bishops, everything remains only a possibility. There are things bishops, or at least archbishops, can do without Synod, and there are things which need to come back to Synod.

You don’t need to break confidentiality to know what sort of ‘things’ are under discussion at the moment because they’re not new: how best to move forwards, what are the implications of various Canons that could be used, how are everyone’s consciences to be honoured, what – if any – compromises would be acceptable? Words like ‘orthodox’ continue to be weaponised. Different views of ecclesiology continue to be displayed. What makes someone a member of the Church of England? Can we even recognise each other as fellow Christians, let alone fellow members of the Church of England? Can we see Christ in each other?

So there you have it. I think the bishops realise that they need to implement the decision of February Synod, but are not sure how best to do that. We were able to give the LLF team our ‘red lines’ and no doubt the conservatives will do exactly the same, although I’m still not clear how the different sorts of conservatives – traditional Catholics, conservative evangelicals, charismatic evangelicals – who disagree on so many fundamentals somehow manage to find common ground on this issue. Is it even the same issue, when for some it’s about needing the universal Church to move forwards all at once (and where do the Pope’s latest statements fit in that?), while for others it’s a ‘first order issue’, for others it’s about ‘Creation’ and for others it’s the thin end of a wedge which includes any ‘sexual intimacy’ (do they all define that the same way?) outside opposite-sex marriage, or even polyamory, incest and bestiality?! My guess is that far more unites the inclusive evangelicals and affirming Catholics and that group so underrepresented in all these meetings, the moderate middle. We are united in a vision of increasing inclusion focused on the Christ whose arms are spread wide to draw us all to Himself, in love and in welcome.