Another Synod, another vote. 

After – what was it, over 8 hours? – on Living in Love and Faith in February, we were back in the debating chamber for even longer at the November Synod, this time to vote on a pretty vague motion that was approving what the bishops had done to ‘implement’ what was agreed in that historic February vote; what was agreed then included lamenting and repenting of the harm done to LGBTQI+ people, welcoming the replacement of Issues in Human Sexuality with new pastoral guidance, the commending of the Prayers of Love and Faith and reporting back after they’ve been in use for five years. The February motion did not propose any change in the doctrine of marriage, and nor did the motion before us for November. Instead, the November motion acknowledges the pain on all sides and ‘encourages’ the bishops to keep on keeping on.

Again, the motion was approved by all three Houses, but this time it included an amendment proposed by the Bishop of Oxford and explicitly supported by the majority of the House of Bishops (25:16), an amendment which was passed in the House of Laity by just one vote (99:98 with 2 abstentions). 

Inevitably, there have already been voices raised to insist that this is all too close and that nothing more should happen on the Prayers of Love and Faith. Of course, if the vote had narrowly gone the other way, those voices would have been perfectly content. The three votes on amendments calling for delay – on the grounds of needing to see the ‘full legal advice’, needing to consider the Pastoral Guidance document, and needing to consider ‘structural provision’ – all failed, and failed in all three Houses, as did amendment 44 from the Bishop of Durham, which included plenty of encouraging words about acknowledging each other as ‘God’s gift’ but also a request for ‘firm provision’; this sounded rather too much like schism and was also defeated in all three Houses.

The ever-gracious Bishop Sarah stood to sum up the debate at around 15.45 yesterday. She noted that when everyone feels like they are the persecuted minority, it’s hard to get anywhere; that sexuality is not a credal issue, but unity is; and that, simply because she was given the task of leading the LLF process, she is no longer invited to sit at table with some in the church. This resonated with me; my own speech had been about the gradual admission to Communion of married people where one has a former spouse still living, and had included a reminder that they – we – are still seen as ‘adulterers’ by some in this church. It also resonated with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s sad observation, at the Communion service at which he presided on the Tuesday morning, that the elephant in the room was those people who were not at the service, the implication being that these were people who regard him as a false teacher.

On the November motion as amended, the figures were 23 bishops in favour, 10 against, with 4 abstentions; 100 clergy in favour, 93 against and one abstention; 104 laity in favour, 100 against and no abstentions. 

But what do those figures really mean? Remember, this was a counted vote by Houses, which means that the names of those voting each way will be published. That means that your vote can be scrutinised by anyone: those who know you, those who think they know you but maybe don’t, those who employ you – and in the Church of England that means the clergy and those laity in paid church roles may be vulnerable – and those with whom you work. There is also a fourth option in voting: to be in the room but not to register a vote, thus not ‘outing’ yourself. Incidentally, some in the chamber could not vote yesterday, because those who are acting Bishops during a vacancy don’t have a vote.

And it’s about more than stating in public where you stand. While I was involved in the 2015-2017 Diocesan Shared Conversations, I published this about the ‘Fruit or Chocolate?’ exercise I’d witnessed during an external review of another diocese’s lay minister training. It demonstrated very clearly that those who vote together don’t choose that position for the same reasons. 

So, applying this just to the ‘Noes’ in yesterday’s vote, for some the final motion as amended went too far. For others, it did not go far enough. Some were unhappy about the secrecy of the bishops’ deliberations – in the Monday Questions session it was interesting to note that questions asking for the figures on how the bishops voted on different topics put to them in the College or the House in September-October were all met with silence, even though those figures have all been leaked and published. Some want Synod, and particularly the laity, to have more of an input. Some want to see all the legal guidance, in full detail, beyond that which has already been issued. Some aren’t fussed about those details but continue to believe that same sex committed relationships are (to quote one speaker), ‘flirting with blessing sexual immorality’. Some wouldn’t say that, but are not free to express their opinion because of their job or because of their congregation. Some are able to vote against ‘their tribe’: others are not.

‘Let us choose not to destroy each other’, said Bishop Sarah as we moved into the period of silent prayer which preceded the vote. The Church of England Evangelical Council immediately issued a press release condemning the bishops, calling the 6+ years of LLF and the many decades of previous reports on sexuality ‘hasty’, and claiming its position is the ‘orthodox’ one. As someone whose own faith journey has taken me through many different sorts of churches within the Church of England, their position – to use one of their favourite words – ‘grieves’ me. It seems like they have always wanted a split, and that there is nothing that will stop them. But a split over this? It is indeed our choice, now, whether to destroy each other – in a way that the remarriage of divorced people in church, or the ordination of women, or women bishops has not done, even though all of these seem to me to be more fundamental questions than whether or not a committed relationship of a couple can be blessed in a church service.