When I wrote about being in the most recent offshoot of the Living in Love and Faith process – the optimistically-named ‘Living with Difference’ – I began by hoping that there was some sort of way through, some ‘Click boom’ moment which nobody had previously considered, by which those who are never going to reach compromise could find a mutually-acceptable way forward. But, after the group started its meetings, I took on board a point made to us by one of the facilitators; not only that this ‘saviour moment’ wasn’t going to happen, but that it positively should not happen, because any such suggestion would not have been properly tested.

So you can imagine my surprise yesterday, when what emerged from the House of Bishops was just such a ‘saviour moment’. Instead of the option considered in some detail at the Living with Difference meetings, and at the subsequent meetings with ‘stakeholders’, of a period of trying out the blessings under Canon B5a – where the archbishops would authorise them – and then seeing if the trial period could be transformed into permanence with Canon B2 and its required two-thirds majorities … the Bishops announced that they were going to commend the Prayers of Love and Faith for use in existing services but delay their use in stand-alone services – because these might look like weddings?? – and instead ask the dioceses for their approval for this before bringing such services to Synod under Canon B2 in 2025.

What’s going on? How does this fit with what the facilitators told us about good process? Where did the ‘B2 decision in the life of this Synod’ proposal come from and has it been fully thought through? I don’t have the information needed to answer those questions. I can see how this answers people who want Synod to have more of a say in what comes into being, but is that what this is about?

On the plus side, I’ve heard that people can use the Prayers with same sex couples right now. The Church of England has some very flexible patterns for a ‘service of the word’ which could easily incorporate the Prayers alongside some appropriate readings and hymns. Something similar could happen with a Eucharistic service. And, whether or not the eventual B2 vote went through Synod, the Prayers would remain ‘on the books’.

So, would a B2 vote go through? At the moment, it seems unlikely. On the basis of voting figures from February 2023, there is no chance, particularly in the House of Laity. That makes it look like we are being set up for failure. Is that what is going on? Yet CEEC has condemned yesterday’s announcement, suggesting that they are not happy either.

What is still completely unclear is what sort of ‘structural differentiation’ – if any – the Bishops are willing to consider for those conservatives for whom any words of blessing uttered in the vicinity of a committed same-sex couple are unacceptable because they could be construed as ‘blessing sin’. If those who want structural differentiation were offered something that met their requirements, would they then agree to vote for the stand-alone services? Is that the idea? But surely they would not, because in their understanding of the situation they would still be supporting ‘blessing sin’. There is a letter being sent to bishops from diocesan evangelical fellowships, presumably – from its repetition of key phrases like ‘compelled to resist’ – written by CEEC, which includes a statement that signatories would not allow bishops who have even expressed support for the prayers – note, expressed support, not necessarily uttered the words themselves – to preach, preside, confirm, or ordain in their churches. They would not receive communion from such a bishop, or even receive communion alongside them.

This statement about communion reminds me of some recent church history. In the early 1980s, the topic dividing Synod was how to deal with people in a marriage in which one of them had been divorced. Marriage in church for such people (only if the Bishop gave his permission), had been debated in 1978 but the motion was lost in one House, the House of Clergy. It was sent to dioceses, with no clear result, and then returned to Synod in February 1981. (This time frame does make me wonder how the Prayers of Love and Faith are supposed to go out to the dioceses and back again in two years) But this wasn’t just about marriage: one question was, could such people receive communion? Here, the dioceses took a clearer, more supportive, line. The Right Rev Kenneth Skelton, Chair of the Marriage Commission, noted that ‘to receive Communion is a sign that the person continues to be a member of the Church; it is not a sign of personal righteousness’.

So, offering communion to couples in this situation was not to be interpreted as a sign that the church approved of the divorce. Nobody at that time was announcing that their own chance to receive communion should be set aside because a divorced person was kneeling at the altar rail with them. Yet, according to some conservative evangelicals, they are unable to receive communion in the vicinity of a bishop who supports prayers being used with committed same-sex couples. I just don’t get it.

Personally, I will take communion from anyone ordained in the Church of England or in their own church. And I will value it, and I will feed on the body of Jesus, and I will give thanks for being included in the scandalous generosity of the heavenly feast. While I am probably never going to understand the many dimensions of the Eucharist, I think I stand more chance there than in trying to understand the House of Bishops.