The College of Bishops (that includes all the serving bishops of the Church of England) issued a press release following its second three-day meeting held earlier this week. The press release said they met “to continue discerning a way forward for the Church of England on questions of identity, sexuality and marriage.” In one way or another bishops have been meeting to discuss these issues for over a decade now. A third meeting will take place in mid-January 2023. And here they still are, preparing themselves for the first Synod meeting of 2023, stuck in a discerning mode. Prepare for disappointment is what I’m telling myself.
The press release says:
“the format of this week’s meeting mirrored that of the earlier November meeting: Working in group and plenary sessions, bishops shared their different views and discussed how the Church should approach questions relating to same-sex relationships and marriage. Other pastoral and theological concerns were also discussed relating to human identity and sexuality honouring the different deeply held convictions that exist among bishops and the wider Church.
This admits that the members of the College of Bishops are still deeply divided, holding views about same-sex relationships and marriage that are impossible to reconcile. That’s what “sharing different views” and discussing “pastoral concerns” really means.
The bishops have a range of “deeply held convictions” about human identity and sexuality. This is where Living in Love and Faith (and the Pilling Report – and Issues in Human Sexuality 1991 – and Gloucester) started, and this, despite a huge investment of time and money, is where the bishops still are. A smaller and smaller proportion of the House still believe that according to Scripture and tradition, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people are not innately created equal and cannot be accorded the same resect and value as is granted to cisgender/heterosexual/straight people.
“Bishops spent time praying, reflecting and discussing a spectrum of possible ways forward for the Church regarding same-sex relationship and marriage, and the theological basis for each.”
The bishops continued their attempt to find agreement that would allow them to present something to Synod in February that they could all support. The spectrum of possible ways they seek has nothing to do with the spectrum of identity relating to gender and sexuality that has become commonplace for many young people today. It is a spectrum of prejudice or “deeply held convictions” on which the bishops say:
“They will continue those discussions at a third meeting in mid-January at which it is anticipated that they will agree an ‘offering’ to the Church, giving a clear sense of direction. The Church of England’s General Synod would then be invited to indicate its views at its meeting in February 2023.”
An “offering” to the Church? Meanwhile the bishops identified a number of related areas to which they believe the Church needs to attend (but don’t say what they are) and discussed how best to offer guidance and support to the wider Church.
“The College also discussed commitments that bishops will take and develop further in line with the direction of travel to be agreed by Synod in February 2023. It is anticipated that these commitments would be included in the bishops’ offering to Synod and the wider Church.”
It’s difficult to know exactly what this final paragraph is communicating. The bishops discussed commitments that they will take and develop further – in line with the direction of travel to be agreed by Synod. The bishops are discussing and taking further something that Synod will agree but that has not yet been formulated. The bishops anticipate that the commitments would be included “in the bishops’ offering to Synod and the wider Church.
The press statement contains absolutely no detail whatsoever about what, in one month from today, on 17th January when the House of Bishops meet to finalise everything, they will sign off to go to Synod.
The Bishop of London, Sarah Mullaly, made a comment that was entirely composed of waffle. She said:
“It was deeply heartening that Bishops continued to walk together united under Christ and celebrated our differences over the course of the last three days. They manifested a desire to find a way forward that will be good news to the Church and to wider society.”
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, also made a comment that said absolutely nothing:
“The College continued to be engaged positively, robustly and frankly with three days of conversations held in a heartfelt commitment of mutual respect and understanding.”
And the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, also made a commitment to absolutely nothing specific:
“As our second meeting closes and as we continue our journey on to the next stage in the LLF process, we continue to pray for continued guidance by the Holy Spirit through the scriptures about God’s intention for human life in all its glory and joy.”
Radical New Christian Inclusion
Remember radical new Christian inclusion? It was the great vision the Archbishops held before us all following the debate in February 2017 in which the General Synod refused to ‘Take note’ of what the bishops then proposed. In a blog post on 17th February 2017 I wrote:
“The debate on Wednesday was utterly wonderful and transformative and the Archbishops’ letter is very responsive to the vote and the energy of the debate. The vote not to take note was what LGBTI people and those who support us had campaigned for with such vigour. It has forced the Archbishops to engage in a serious re-think. Their letter already reveals a remarkable change of tone and proposals for new way forward. I really value and appreciate their changed attitude.”
“The Archbishops recognise the need for “a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church . . . based on good, healthy, flourishing relationships, and in a proper 21st century understanding of being human and of being sexual.”
Fabulous!”
The archbishops asked every Diocesan Bishop to meet with their General Synod members for an extended conversation in order to establish clearly the desires of every member of Synod for the way forward. I commented that this is a good first step, but:
“The majority of the members of General Synod voted to take note of the paper on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations (GS 2055). The margin in the House of Clergy was slim – seven votes produced the shock result. Building a majority that will vote in favour of proposed changes that need Synod approval presents a challenge.”
The bishops are struggling to achieve consensus ahead of the crucial General Synod meeting from 6th to 9th February. Achieving consensus is now the primary goal. Keeping every bishop on board and avoiding any kind of schism. Ideally keeping conservatives, catholic and evangelical, on board, by trimming the bishops proposals to fit within conservative (in)tolerances. The vision of radical new Christian inclusion has been abandoned – or reconstructed to mean the radical inclusion of those for whom the full equality of LGBTQIA+ people is an impossibility, even with the most generous tolerances – an opt out exclusion zone from equal marriage (and probably much more).
The House of Bishops majority for radical change has not been built. As a result, there will be no such majority in Synod. A great deal has been achieved, but the outcome is not what I or my LGBTQIA+ friends and allies and colleagues have been advocating for since 2017.
Safeguarding
The press release from the College of Bishops meeting was posted the day after a press release from the Church of England announcing “necessary further delay” before publication of the Learning Lessons Review into the abuse perpetrated by John Smyth, disappointing for victims and survivors.
On Thursday, the day after the College press release, the Church Times (under the news story about further delay in the review of the John Smyth case) reported that an appeal had been made to the Charity Commission:
“A letter has been sent to the Charity Commission asking it to investigate the Church of England’s safeguarding practices. The 51 signatories include lay and ordained church members, survivors, and some elected members of General Synod.”
The signatories to the letter express concern about safeguarding policies and practice in the Church of England, referring to “a highly dysfunctional church culture” that is “uniformly poor in responses to allegations of abuse”. The letter says the Church lacks any “functional leadership” in safeguarding. “Current safeguarding processes, bodies, panels, and their personnel are incompetent, ineffective and unfit for purpose.”
The Church, overseen by the House of Bishops, that lacks any functional leadership, is about to present proposals to the General Synod that will have a huge impact on me and LGBTQIA+ members of the Church and on the way in which the population of this country perceive the Church of England. I predict that whatever the bishops propose to Synod, the Church will be judged as homophobic and transphobic. Most people judge the Church because of its prejudices and its belief in an unbelievable, unloving God. They do so despite the extraordinary quality of pastoral work undertaken locally by many congregations, irrespective of their place on the conservative / progressive spectrum.
I anticipate that the work undertaken by the College and House of Bishops, integral to the Living in Love and Faith process and to the outcome at General Synod in February 2023, will be judged “incompetent, ineffective and unfit for purpose. This will be a tragic end to what has in many ways been an effective exercise. I hope I will be proved wrong, too pessimistic, but Church that is unable to ensure that its safeguarding practice is so inadequate is unlikely to produce proposals that are adequate to the most basic of LGBTQIA+ expectations.