I’ve been silent here since the end of May; and in that piece, I commented that “it’s over two months since I last posted here, and readers may be wondering whether I’m still alive”. Now we are in July, regular readers may be asking that question again!

When I wrote that blog post, I was coming out of a month of resting due to pneumonia. I remain impressed by the excellent work by my GP in diagnosing, prescribing and giving me clear orders on what I could and could not do. I described in that piece how I had found myself being elected to the Crown Nominations Commission to find the next bishop of my diocese, and ended with the comment that, because of the requirements of confidentiality imposed by CNC membership, “silence will fall”. The CNC continues its work; we are now at the stage at which each member can mandate one candidate to be considered for the long list, along with a couple of other suggested candidates who will only appear on the long list if the Archbishops think they fit the profile. And I think that’s all I am allowed to say. You can be assured that the standard process is happening and we shortlist in October. 

Acting bishops?

Because of being on General Synod, I know many other people who are involved in the processes to find their own diocese’s next bishop. It does seem extraordinary, with 42 dioceses, just how many of these are in the CNC process at any one time. There’s a handy list maintained by the excellent Peter Owen, here, which shows 10 current vacancies. And, because ‘acting’ bishops, despite carrying the responsibilities of a diocesan bishop while there’s a vacancy, can’t vote in either the House of Bishops or General Synod, this has a knock-on of denying their dioceses full episcopal representation on these bodies, too.

Among the papers issued ahead of the imminent July meeting of Synod is GS Misc 1458, which addresses these points about acting bishops; the paper states that the House of Bishops’ Standing Committee intends to bring draft legislation to the February 2027 meeting of Synod, to enable them to vote. It can’t ‘just happen’; Synod’s not like that, and in this case an Amending Canon needs to be brought. What’s interesting here is that, when we discussed these plans earlier in the year, as the Convocations of Canterbury and of York (technical language for Synod’s elected clergy meeting according to their Province) and as the House of Laity, voting was close. For example, in the Convocation of York, there were 21 in favour of change, 20 against, 2 abstentions. What’s the objection? I don’t have any objection to dioceses in vacancy still having full episcopal representation, and I didn’t hear anything persuasive on the ‘against’ side in that House of Laity meeting, so I am not the best person to ask. Meanwhile, for July Synod, once again, we’ll have acting bishops present who can speak but not vote – including Bishop Gavin, acting during the Oxford vacancy.

Bodies

Which brings me back to the CNC. The Oxford ‘diocesan 6’ met for a getting-to-know-each-other lunch at the start of June. As I did the short walk home, my hip – a body part that has previously never malfunctioned – felt rather stiff and sort of grating. I continued my normal day, and my normal 8000 or so steps, hoping the hip would move more easily with a bit of exercise. But that night, I had the most appalling pain. I didn’t sleep, and first thing in the morning had no option but to phone 111. It was a weekend, so 111 sent me to the out-of-hours service at a local community hospital, and the doctor there sent me to A&E for an X-ray. Nothing was found. The A&E doctor said it was a sprained hip, which seemed an odd diagnosis as I had done nothing to it; no bangs, falls, twists… By the Monday, still in agony that was untouched by regular painkillers, I saw a GP who immediately put me on opioids and said an MRI was needed.

Two weeks on from that, and doing better on the strong pain relief, I saw an orthopaedic specialist who put me on crutches and fixed up an MRI, which went on to show a significant amount of fluid in the joint. Blood tests came back fine, so now I am waiting to see a rheumatologist to discuss what is going on here. The appointment is for the last day of Synod. I am certainly not risking being delayed in travel back from York and missing this precious appointment, but in any case I know that I can’t possibly cope with the walking or the sitting at York, so for the first time I shall attend Synod by zoom.

On to July Synod

So far – and the run-up to each Synod is a long one – it feels like Synod as usual; assorted zooms, giving and receiving briefings. But it’s not really ‘as usual’ because this time I am bringing a Private Member’s Motion (PMM): That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship. As soon as the wording of this was published, it became the topic for several blog posts by conservative individuals and groups. Some compared it with the Higton motion of 1987; I was on Synod for that debate, and have written about it here, as well as commissioning a piece from another then-member of Synod, Terry Louden, which you can read here and which describes the atmosphere of the time as having “the air of a witch-hunt”. What ended up going through in 1987 was later described by Rowan Williams as “a shabby compromise”; I rather hope that we can do better than that on 13 July. 

In the various critiques of my motion, I had various requests to spell out what I meant by “intimate” or whether the words “can be” were a hint that some sorts of intimacy were OK and others weren’t. While I was not going to engage with these voices, as it would mean having the debate a month before Synod is scheduled to engage in it, it was useful to see what people were talking about. In the supporting paper I submitted as part of the process of bringing a PMM, GS 2455A, I concentrated on this motion as a pastoral statement that offers “an opportunity to acknowledge the debt we owe to so many of our sisters and brothers by recognising them as disciples of Christ who offer faithful service in parishes and in the running of our national Church, and who speak out for Christ in the world.” Because if we don’t think partnered lesbian and gay people are Christian disciples, just what are we saying?

It doesn’t take much effort to realise that the motion echoes the language of the debates on the ordination of women, with the 1975 “no fundamental objection” motion on women as priests. I was surprised that some conservatives immediately resisted my wording on the grounds that they do object, because, of course, if you think that there is a fundamental objection, you just vote against – as happened in 1975. Synod can say “no fundamental objection” as a majority statement. I believe that we should have started the Living in Love and Faith process with a similar, general motion on the principle. If the majority view is that Christians can’t be in committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, then can we at least be honest about that? 

Ah yes, “intimate”. Conservatives are uneasy with my use of that word. Remember this is the Church of England, where for clergy same-sex civil partnerships are fine (unless you are being considered as a bishop, although in Southwark diocese their Statement of Needs – the view of the diocese on what they are like and what they are looking for in a new bishop – includes encouragement for LGBT+ priests “in a same-sex relationship or civil partnership” to apply). However, clergy in same-sex civil marriages are not officially able to apply for other posts, based on some idea that the civil partnerships don’t include ‘sex’ (whatever is meant by that) and civil marriages do. My supporting paper addresses our understandable reluctance to name body parts; in my academic life I strongly support teaching children the names of their parts and using these rather than family euphemisms which can be unhelpful if there is a case of abuse, as well as in seeking medical advice, so it’s always a bit weird entering the C of E bubble in which even “down there” is considered rather risqué.  In the supporting paper, I quote the helpful response of Archbishop Sarah to a Synod question three years ago, referring to the Living in Love and Faith programme: “LLF has always tried to recognise that the expression of sexual intimacy between two people cannot be reduced to a small set of defined actions.” That’s right: intimacy means different things to different people and it involves far more than our body parts. The generative and the erotic are not necessarily the same thing. Think not only of our passions and our feelings, but also of the intimate care lovingly given when one person is sick or even dying, and their partner cares for them. 

Because I shall be taking part in Synod online, it won’t be me who presents the motion. But now that the supporting paper and  the formal response to it have both been published, I’m perfectly happy to explain more of the carefully-chosen wording used. For example, “can”, in “can be entirely compatible”, because just as in some opposite-sex relationships there can be damaging, abusive power dynamics going on in a committed same-sex relationship. Or, to put it another way, some gay people can behave as badly as some straight people. I am less willing to engage with those who offer a series of “what abouts” – what about incest, what about throuples, that sort of thing. It’s amazing what some people think is relevant to a very simple motion, and I’d point them to the end of my supporting document where I quote the LLF book, which asks us to consider the picture “of two people taking a lifelong journey on which they learn to love and be loved, and in the process learn more of God’s love”. That’s what it’s all about.