So what happened there? You may well ask. A debate on LLF stopped by the procedural motion to move to Next Business… is that a further kicking of the proverbial can down the unending road, the road which we somehow ‘walk together’ even when we don’t?

Before answering that, it’s important to note that there really is a change of tone in the speeches on LLF made to Synod. Partly, of course, that’s about who is called; some speakers just create a very bad atmosphere, for whatever reason. Partly, I suspect, it’s that the real feelings people have are moving a little further under the radar. But partly, for some at least, there’s a real attempt to be more careful with our language,

It was clear that the lead LLF bishop is trying to shift the mood towards ‘reconciliation and bridge building’, as the motion before us stated. But that motion, as I said at the start of my speech, leaves much unclear, not least who is actually in charge of the LLF process after it has lost its two previous lead bishops and its theological advisor at the same time, and recently one of the two current lead bishops, while also replacing one of the two staff members. It didn’t help that the lead LLF bishop sent out an email shortly before Synod to say that the 10 Commitments listed in one of the documents sent to us weren’t actually the commitments that would be made. So the motion was asking us to welcome the proposal for a series of commitments rather than the Commitments as published. This immediately made it difficult to know how to take any speech in the debate which referred specifically to the published text of those Commitments listed! 

Other than an improved tone, the debate was much as usual (Groundhog day anyone?). I had noticed that Notice Paper V – which sets out the financial implications of each item of business – mentioned £175,000 for residential conversations around LLF, which sounded to me like a re-run of the Shared Conversations, which is where this blog started back in 2015. But there was nothing about these in the paper circulated nor in the amendment which told me my instinct was correct. I mentioned this in my speech. No formal response but, for what it’s worth, I think this would be a good idea, and a conversation with someone on the LLF team suggests it will happen.

All five amendments were put forward by those at the traditionalist/conservative end of the church. The first, to ‘note’ rather than ‘welcome’ the work on LLF since last time around, was passed because most people there, of whatever persuasion, were not enthusiastic about the motion. The second, which wanted to insert the statement that ‘many’ would say that ‘some of the issues raised are not matters on which they can simply agree to disagree’, was defeated. This was a vote by Houses, and it was interesting that the overall numbers voting suggests that around 30 members weren’t voting at all. Traveling? Ill? Not wanting to have their names registered on one side or the other? Remember, these counted votes lead to the publication of a list of how everyone voted.

The third amendment wanted to strengthen the motion by adding ‘and welcome the greater emphasis on openness and transparency’. Again, lots of enthusiasm for that regardless of what our position is on inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people.

The fourth asked for ‘a settlement based on legally secure structural provision’. It was defeated in all three Houses. The language keeps shifting here, so it is difficult to know if we are all talking about the same thing. The Bishop of Leicester talks about ‘minimum’ provision for those who believe they need it; those who can’t ‘agree to disagree’ are on record as asking for something I could never call ‘minimal’: separate bishops, DDOs, theological colleges, ordinations… oh, and safeguarding. Yes, just when we are moving towards independent safeguarding. In the debate, the Bishop of Guildford suggested replacing ‘minimal’ with ‘proportionate’ structural provision. What does that mean? What proportions are we talking about there? How do you even do that?

Or – but this seems unlikely when it is this particular bishop proposing it – is this saying that having entirely optional, opt-in use of the resources of the Prayers of Love and Faith which respects the consciences of incumbents and PCCs is really tiny and doesn’t merit the division of everything in the Church of England apart from General Synod and the pension fund?

After amendment 4 failed, the motion for Next Business was proposed and passed on a counted vote of the whole Synod. To get to that stage had required all sorts of conversations behind the scenes, but those of us involved on the inclusive side were encouraged that many of a more traditionalist persuasion were also interested in cutting the debate before we reached yet another Big Vote which would only end unpleasantly. The votes on the amendments provided evidence of how that would go. 

There has since been a press release which is essentially ‘watch this space’. The promise is to come to the July Synod with something ‘concrete’; not least for the sake of those who still wait for stand-alone services, I pray that this will happen.