(Full version of the speech to General Synod I gave today, 14 November 2023)

I am speaking against this amendment and the next two which want to halt it all until… well, as long as possible. As bishop Sarah said, this is about delaying…

I think it’s time for some history. Anyone would think there’d been nothing like this before. But there has. And it was gradual but there came several points where a decision had to be made.

Like the Bishop of Worcester, I’m an adulterer, in the eyes of some of this church, of some in this chamber. Like him, I married someone who’d been divorced. 

I want to remind members of how the church addressed the question of marriages like mine, because the history and the fears expressed have something to say to us when we are thinking about this further area of pastoral provision.

In my teens I was aware that one married couple at our church didn’t take communion, because one of them had been divorced and had a former spouse still living. So within my lifetime, it wasn’t just that marriage after divorce couldn’t happen in church: it disbarred you from receiving the sacrament. If you hadn’t realised – just think about that for a moment. But did we split the church over it? No.

Fast forward 30 years or so, and I met the man I would go on to marry. His first wife, the mother of their children, had died and he went on to marry again, a marriage which ended in divorce. It devastated him. So signing on with that Christian dating site led to a crash course in where we were on divorce in 2005. We filled in forms, were interviewed by our parish priest, and were then allowed to marry.

And before 2005? On Monday the bishop of Winchester listed all the sexuality reports. For divorce and marriage too, the Church produced report after report, alongside and in response to changes in civil law. 

The 1978 proposal was that divorced people could marry in church, with the Bishop’s permission. Lost in the house of clergy, it was sent out to the dioceses, as is also proposed in the B2 route favoured by the bishops now. Three years later: no clear result, although the dioceses agreed that such people could be admitted to Holy Communion. It grieves me that those who are pushing for ‘formal structural provision’ or ‘differentiation’ sometimes say that they won’t be able to receive communion alongside a bishop who agrees with same-sex blessings. What is wrong with us, that we so closely ring-fence the sacraments so freely offered to us? 

1984: a proposal for a service of prayer and dedication after a civil marriage, but no final approval because 31 diocesan synods rejected it. So that service WAS commended by the House of Bishops, using Canons B4 and B5, despite fears that “The appearance of the bride in white, the ringing of bells, the wedding march – would convey a misleading message which the words of the service would be unable to correct.”

Only in 2002 – three years before my marriage – was church marriage after divorce allowed; but only in ‘exceptional’ circumstances, respecting clergy consciences. At final approval, there were 36 speeches. Marathon debates: also, nothing new! And our 2023 LLF debates echo points made there: accusations of conforming to the circumstances of our age, claims that the motion should be put on hold until the final draft of the advice from the House of Bishops, discussion of Canon B30, … even concern about what was called ‘the exposed position of the parish priest’ whose responsibility it was to decide whether a marriage could take place or not (Winchester Report p.3). 

What was not discussed though was structural differentiation. When I look back over this history, I am struck that over my own lifetime we have moved from a far more restricted position for people like me – banned even from receiving communion – towards services of blessing and in due course to marriage in church. And this is despite teaching by Jesus on divorce, yet not a word spoken by him about same-sex couples. If we can stay together in a church which accepts different positions on divorce, I believe we should also be allowing blessings of same-sex couples.

A man and a woman for life: we have made pastoral provision for the second part of that, and now is the time to make pastoral provision for the first part… Responding as bishop Sarah said on Monday to real life situations.

If I can adjust words from paragraph 227 of the Lichfield Report:

“Their decision to (re)marry is their own, made after due reflection and prayer, and made in good conscience. They believe that God is calling them to this (second) marriage… They seek (1) A means of grace to encourage them along the path which they have chosen; (2) An opportunity for sharing their discovered vocation with their friends and neighbours in humility, wonder and joy; (3) An acknowledgement of the mercies of God within the family of Christ and of the continuing fellowship and acceptance of one another in the Church.” Grace, mercy, humility, wonder and joy: if we can only offer these in services of blessing, let us at least do this, to those committed and faithful and patient couples who are asking to share their vocation and give thanks for God’s mercies.

I urge you to vote in support of the motion and to reject the next three amendments which aim to delay us further.