On Saturday morning at York, the General Synod will have a “Presentation from the House of Bishops on the Proposals for the Pastoral Advisory Group on Human Sexuality and the development of the Teaching Document.”
Note that this is not a debate, but a Presentation followed by a Question and Answer session. The relevant background document is GS Misc 1158 Next Steps on Human Sexuality. One hour has been allocated for this item.
The Proposals for the Pastoral Advisory Group (note the title change from Pastoral Oversight group) are quite brief, and are copied in full below the fold. About this aspect, para 3 of GS Misc 1158 says:
..in our letter of 16th February we committed ourselves, and the whole House of Bishops, to two actions. The first of these was the creation of a group, chaired by the Bishop of Newcastle, to advise dioceses on pastoral issues concerning human sexuality so that we can make explicit our commitment to show the love of Christ to all people, regardless of sexual or gender identity. Good progress has been made in establishing the new Pastoral Advisory Group, as reported below, which is now embarking on its work.
All the rest of the document is concerned with the development of the Teaching Document, and that will be covered here in a separate article, to follow shortly. This will enable discussion in the Comments below to focus specifically on the Pastoral Advisory group proposal.
49 CommentsUpdated again 1 July
There are two motions due to come before General Synod in York next month. One is a Diocesan motion from Blackburn, Welcoming Transgender People, to be debated on Sunday afternoon, the other is a Private Member’s Motion from Jayne Ozanne, on Conversion Therapy, to be debated on Saturday afternoon.
The Blackburn diocesan motion reads:
That this Synod, recognizing the need for transgender people to be welcomed and affirmed in their parish church, call on the House of Bishops to consider whether some nationally commended liturgical materials might be prepared to mark a person’s gender transition.
The background paper from the diocese is GS 2071A Welcoming Transgender People. This provides a comprehensive briefing, including a helpful glossary of terms, and a detailed explanation of the circumstances which prompted the motion being brought forward.
There is also a background note from the Secretary General, GS 2071B, which includes a discussion of some theological considerations, and reviews the existing liturgical provisions which might be relevant.
OneBodyOneFaith has published an article by Christina Beardsley Welcoming and affirming transgender people: reflections and resources for the Blackburn Motion,which comments on some of the opposition to this motion, and links to a number of resources that reflect modern scientific thinking on this topic.
The Private Member’s Motion reads:
Jayne Ozanne (Oxford) to move that this Synod:
(a) endorse the statement (see below) of 16 January 2017 signed by The UK Council
for Psychotherapy, The Royal College of General Practitioners and others that the
practice of conversion therapy has no place in the modern world, is unethical,
harmful and not supported by evidence; and(b) call upon the Archbishops’ Council to become a co-signatory to the statement on
behalf of the Church of England.
The statement referred to reads:
January 16th 2017 Statement
We the undersigned UK organisations wish to state that the practice of conversion therapy has no place in the modern world. It is unethical and harmful and not supported by evidence.Conversion Therapy is the term for therapy that assumes certain sexual orientations or gender identities are inferior to others, and seeks to change or suppress them on that basis.
Sexual orientations and gender identities are not mental health disorders, although exclusion, stigma and prejudice may precipitate mental health issues for any person subjected to these abuses. Anyone accessing therapeutic help should be able to do so without fear of judgement or the threat of being pressured to change a fundamental aspect of who they are.
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
The British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies
The British Psychoanalytic Council
The British Psychological Society
The College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists
GLADD – The Association of LGBT Doctors and Dentists
The National Counselling Society
National Health Service Scotland
Pink Therapy
The Royal College of General Practitioners
The Scottish Government
Stonewall
The UK Council for Psychotherapy
The background paper by Jayne Ozanne is GS 2070A Conversion Therapy. This explains how the 2017 statement came into being, describes the position of the UK Government, and lists the comments of various medical professional bodies on conversion therapy.
There is also a background note from the Secretary General GS 2070B which goes into more detail and notes some differences between the 2017 statement and earlier ones.
And OneBodyOneFaith has reproduced another article by Jayne Ozanne A Call to Condemn Conversion Therapy.
Updates
The Church Times has this: Ozanne motion seeks to label as ‘unethical’ therapy to change sexual orientation.
This paper by Jayne Ozanne is also published: Spiritual abuse – the next great scandal for the Church.
There is also another paper, written by Professors Michael King and Robert Song: Conversion Therapy – Science Briefing. Copy available here.
7 CommentsThe second circulation of General Synod papers was issued this morning; see here for details. There is an accompanying press release (copied below) which concentrates on an addition to the agenda made by the archbishops. The text of the additional motion is copied below the fold.
After the General Election: a still small voice of calm
23 June 2017
The Church of England is providing a “still small voice of calm” at a time when the people of Britain face “unprecedented questions about the future”, according to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
The recent General Election has left many questions unanswered about at a “critical time in the nation’s history”, they say.
Christians should therefore pray for political leaders to have courage but also give thanks for signs of political apathy receding, they say.
The call comes in the text of the motion to be debated at the Church’s General Synod, which meets in York next month.
The archbishops have used their legal powers to change the published schedule to include an urgent debate on the state of the nation.
Entitled “After the General Election: a still small voice of calm” it will take place on the opening afternoon of Synod, Friday July 7.
Details of the motion were published as a second circulation of papers was issued ahead of the summer session of Synod at the University of York between July 7 and July 10.
The documents also include a paper setting out the process for compiling a major new teaching document on human sexuality and the work of a new Pastoral Advisory Group to advise dioceses on pastoral provision for same-sex couples.
It follows a vote in February in which Synod opted not to ‘take note’ of the House of Bishops’ report on sexuality.
The paper, also issued by the two archbishops, reiterates a pledge to base the new teaching document on a “radical Christian inclusion” to be “founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology and the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it”.
The papers also include information on National Support for Local Churches and background information for a motion tabled by Jayne Ozanne, of the Diocese of Oxford, calling for Synod to condemn the practice of Conversion Therapy, among other subjects.
Notes to editors
The title of the motion is a reference to the story in 1 Kings 19 in which God spoke to the prophet Elijah not through a hurricane, earthquake or fire but through a “still small voice”.
3 CommentsThe Church of England has issued the press release below about papers for next month’s meeting of General Synod.
See my previous article for my list of papers.
General Synod papers published
16 June 2017
Papers circulated to members of the Church of England’s General Synod ahead of its July sessions in York have been published online.
They detail discussions planned on subjects ranging from the Church’s work in areas where many people follow other faiths to concerns over the cost of applying for British citizenship and the possibility of services to help transgender Christians mark their transition.
Synod is due to meet at the University of York from Friday July 7 to Monday July 10.
Papers are being published in two batches. The first circulation of papers is available here.
A second circulation of papers will be published on Friday, June 23. There will also be a pre-Synod briefing at Church House Westminster next Friday.
One briefing paper in the first circulation sets out how an existing Church of England service for reaffirming baptismal vows may form the liturgical basis for services which help transgender Christians mark their gender transition publicly.
The liturgy for Affirmation of Baptismal Faith, contained in the Common Worship service book, may be used with people who have already been baptised but who wish to “reaffirm their identity in Christ” after a significant personal transition, including gender, according to the paper.
It rules out the possibility of so-called “re-baptism” services, because Church of England teaching makes clear that baptism can only be received once.
However it makes clear that there is “no legal or doctrinal difficulty” with transgender people reaffirming their baptism vows with a new name.
The briefing was issued in response to a motion being brought to Synod by the Diocese of Blackburn, calling for nationally commended liturgical materials to mark a person’s gender transition.
The papers also include details of a motion raising concerns about the cost of applying for British citizenship and its impact on those on low incomes.
There is also a report on the Church of England’s Presence and Engagement programme, which supports parishes fulfilling the Church of England’s commitment to being a Christian presence in every community, even in areas where many people follow other faiths.
The timetable for General Synod is available here.
1 CommentUpdated 17 June, 23 June, 5 July
All the papers for next month’s meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod are now available online.
The first batch of papers for next month’s meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod are now available online. The remaining papers will be issued on 23 June and I will add links when these become available.
zip file of all first circulation papers
zip file of all second circulation papers
zip file of all papers
Papers in numerical order with a note of the day scheduled for their consideration
Synod meets from Friday 7 to Monday 10 July 2017.
The Archbishops have made a change to agenda for Friday to add a debate on After the General Election, a still small voice of calm. Details are in Notice Paper 4.
GS 2027B – Draft Legislative Reform Measure [Saturday]
GS 2027Z/2030Z/2032Z – Report by the Steering Committee [Saturday]
GS 2029B – Draft Amending Canon No.36 for final approval [Friday]
GS 2029BB – Draft Amending Canon No.37 for final Approval [Monday]
GS 2029C – Draft Petition for Her Majesty’s Royal Assent and Licence [Monday]
GS 2029CC – Draft Petition for Her Majesty’s Royal Assent and Licence [Monday]
GS 2029Z – Report by the Steering Committee [Saturday]
GS 2030B – Draft Statute Law (repeals) Measure [Saturday]
[see also GS 2027Z/2030Z/2032Z above]
GS 2032B – Draft Pension (Pre-consolidation) Measure [Saturday]
[see also GS 2027Z/2030Z/2032Z above]
GS 2058 – Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council [Monday]
GS 2059 – Agenda
GS 2060 – Report by the Business Committee [Friday]
GS 2061 – Appointment to the Archbishops’ Council [Friday]
GS 2062 – Annual Report of the Audit Committee [deemed business – Friday]
GS 2063 – Presence and Engagement [Saturday]
GS 2064 – Draft Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure [deemed business – Saturday]
GS 2064x – Explanatory Memorandum
GS 2065 – Payments to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2017 [Saturday]
GS 2065x – Explanatory Memorandum
GS 2066 – Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2017 [Saturday]
GS 2067 – Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees) Order 2017 [Saturday]
GS 2066/2067x – Explanatory Memorandum
GS 2068 – 52nd Report of the Standing Orders Committee [deemed business – Saturday]
GS 2069 – National Support for Local Churches: Report from the Archbishops’ Council [Saturday]
GS 2070A – Conversion Therapy, A note from Ms Jayne Ozanne [Saturday]
GS 2070B – Conversion Therapy, A note from The Secretary General [Saturday]
GS 2071A – Welcoming Transgender People, A note from The Revd Chris Newlands [Sunday]
GS 2071B – Welcoming Transgender People, A note from The Secretary General [Sunday]
GS 2072 – Clergy Wellbeing [Sunday]
[See also GS Misc 1163 below]
GS 2073A – Schools Admissions Code, A note from The Revd Tiffer Robinson [Sunday]
GS 2073B – Schools Admissions Code, A note from The Secretary General [Sunday]
GS 2074A – Cost of applying for Citizenship, A note from Mr Ben Franks [Monday]
GS 2074B – Cost of applying for Citizenship, A note from The Secretary General [Monday]
GS 2075 – The work of the General Elections Review Group [Monday]
[See also GS Misc 1164 below]
GS 2076 – The Archbishops’ Council’s Budget [Monday]
GS 2077A – Food Wastage, A note from The Revd Andrew Dotchin
GS 2077B – Food Wastage, A note from The Secretary General [contingency business]
Other Papers
Questions Notice Paper [Friday]
Church Commissioners Annual Report 2016 [Friday]
GS Misc 1158 – Proposals for the pastoral advisory group on human sexuality and the development of the teaching document [Saturday]
GS Misc 1159 – Interim Report on the Review of the Crown Nominations Commission [Sunday]
GS Misc 1160 – Instructions on Electronic Voting
GS Misc 1161 – Report of the Meissen Commission
GS Misc 1162 – Code of Conduct
GS Misc 1163 – Clergy Wellbeing, A note from The Secretary General [Sunday]
GS Misc 1164 – Presentation by the Elections Review Group [Monday]
GS Misc 1165 – Clergy Discipline Commission
GS Misc 1166 – Signature of PMMs
GS Misc 1167 – Members of Councils, Boards and Committees
GS Misc 1168 – Summary of Decisions from the House of Bishops
GS Misc 1169 – Update on the Archbishops’ Council Activities
GS Misc 1170 – Resourcing Ministerial Education
House of Laity
HLA1 – House of Laity Agenda [Saturday evening]
HLA2 – House of Laity Agenda (if an Article 7 reference is required)
House of Clergy
Convocation of Canterbury Agenda (if an Article 7 reference is required)
Convocation of York Agenda (if an Article 7 reference is required)
6 CommentsUpdated 2 July to incorporate revised tiemtable
The Church of England’s General Synod will meet in York from Friday July 7 until Monday July 11. The outline timetable is available here, and is copied below. The full agenda will be published with the first release of papers on Friday June 16.
GENERAL SYNOD: JULY 2017
Timetable
Friday 7 July
2.30 pm – 7.00 pm
2.30 pm Opening worship
Introduction and welcomes
Response on behalf of ecumenical guests
3.15 pm Report by the Business Committee
3.45 pm Debate on a motion from the Archbishops “After the General Election, a still small voice of calm”
4.45 pm Legislative Business Amending Canon No. 36 – Final Drafting
5.05 pm Approval of appointment to the Archbishops’ Council
5.25 pm Church Commissioners Annual Report – Presentation under Standing Order 107 followed by Q&A
*6.00 pm Questions
7.00 pm Close of business
Worship
Saturday 8 July
7.30 am Holy Communion in the Berrick Saul Theatre
8.15 am House of Bishops meeting to approve the final form of Amending Canons Nos. 36 and 37
9.00 am – 12.30 pm
9.00 am Morning worship
9.15 am Presentation from the House of Bishops on the Proposals for the Pastoral Advisory Group on Human Sexuality and the development of the Teaching Document – Presentation under S.O. 107 followed by Q&A
10.15 am Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council on the Presence and Engagement Interfaith programme
*11.00 Legislative Business Legislative Reform Measure – Final Drafting / Final Approval
11.45 Legislative Business Statute Law (Repeals) Measure – Final Drafting/Final Approval
12.00 Legislative Business Pensions (Pre-consolidation) Measure – Final Drafting / Final Approval
*12.10 Introductory Session: National Support for Local Churches – Presentation under Standing Order 107
12.30 pm – 2.30 pm
Lunch
Synod members meet in groups from 2.30 pm – 4.00 pm
2.30 pm Workshops on Forms of National Support for Local Churches
4.30 pm – 7.00 pm
4.30 pm Report from the Archbishops’ Council on National Support for Local Churches
5.45 pm Private Member’s Motion – Conversion Therapy
7.00 pm Close of business
Worship
8.30 pm Meeting of the House of Laity
Sunday 9 July
10.00 am Holy Communion in York Minster
2.30 pm – 7.00 pm
2.30 pm Diocesan Synod Motion – Welcoming Transgender People
3.45 pm Interim Report on the Review of the Crown Nominations Commission – Presentation under S.O. 107 followed by Q&A
4.30 pm Report from the House of Clergy on a Covenant for Clergy Wellbeing
5.45 pm
EITHER
Meetings of the House of Laity and Convocations from 5.45-7.00 pm [including evening worship]
OR
Private Member’s Motion – Schools Admissions Code
7.00 pm Close of business
Worship
Monday 10 July
9.00 am – 12.30 pm
9.00 am Morning worship
9.15 am Diocesan Synod Motion – Cost of Applying for Citizenship
10.30 am Report from the Elections Review Group
10.50 am Presentation from the Elections Review Group Presentation under S.O. 107 followed by Q&A
11.50 pm Legislative Business (ctd …) Amending Canon No. 36 – Final Approval
12.30 pm – 2.30 pm
Lunch
2.30 pm – 5.00 pm
2.30 pm Archbishops’ Council’s Annual Report 2016 – Presentation under S.O. 106 followed by Q&A
3.00 pm Archbishops’ Council’s Budget for 2018
4.00 pm Amending Canon No. 37 – Final Approval
*4.30 pm Farewells
*5.00 pm Prorogation
Contingency Business
Private Members’ Motion: Schools Admission Code
Diocesan Synod Motion: Food wastage
Deemed Items
The Archbishops’ Council Audit Committee Annual Report
Report from the Standing Orders Committee on the amendments to the Standing Orders required in connection with the Legislative Reform Measure and other matters
Miscellaneous Provisions Measure
Payments to the CCT Order
Fees Orders
* not later than
Please note that all timings are indicative unless marked with an asterisk
The detailed voting lists for the electronic votes at last week’s meeting of the General Synod have been released. The list for the take note motion on the House of Bishops’ report on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations is here.
Readers may be particularly interested in the voting in the House of Bishops which I have shown in the table below.
The bishops voted 43 in favour and one against with no recorded abstentions. The Bishop of Coventry (the only vote against) has said that he pressed the wrong button on his voting machine and intended to vote in favour. The Bishop of Southwark has said that he intended to record an abstention but failed to do so.
There are 53 places in the House of Bishops (42 diocesan bishops, the Bishop of Dover, the Bishop to the Forces and nine elected suffragan bishops). Two diocesan sees were vacant on the day of the vote. So, in addition to Southwark, six bishops were absent from the vote. If any readers know for certain the reason for any of the absences, please let us know via the comments.
Electronic voting results for Item 14
Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations: a report from the House of Bishops (GS 2055):
‘That the Synod do take note of this report.’
| Voting in the House of Bishops | |||
| see | name | vote | |
| 1 | Canterbury | Justin Welby | for |
| 2 | York | John Sentamu | for |
| 3 | London | Richard Chartres | absent |
| 4 | Durham | Paul Butler | for |
| 5 | Winchester | Tim Dakin | for |
| 6 | Bath & Wells | Peter Hancock | for |
| 7 | Birmingham | David Urquhart | absent |
| 8 | Blackburn | Julian Henderson | for |
| 9 | Bristol | Michael Hill | absent |
| 10 | Carlisle | James Newcome | for |
| 11 | Chelmsford | Stephen Cottrell | for |
| 12 | Chester | Peter Forster | for |
| 13 | Chichester | Martin Warner | for |
| 14 | Coventry | Christopher Cocksworth | against – by mistake |
| 15 | Derby | Alastair Redfern | for |
| 16 | Ely | Stephen Conway | for |
| 17 | Gibraltar in Europe | Robert Innes | for |
| 18 | Exeter | Robert Atwell | for |
| 19 | Gloucester | Rachel Treweek | for |
| 20 | Guildford | Andrew Watson | absent |
| 21 | Hereford | Richard Frith | for |
| 22 | Leeds | Nicholas Baines | for |
| 23 | Leicester | Martyn Snow | for |
| 24 | Lichfield | Michael Ipgrave | for |
| 25 | Lincoln | Christopher Lowson | for |
| 26 | Liverpool | Paul Bayes | for |
| 27 | Manchester | David Walker | for |
| 28 | Newcastle | Christine Hardman | for |
| 29 | Norwich | Graham James | for |
| 30 | Oxford | Steven Croft | for |
| 31 | Peterborough | Donald Allister | for |
| 32 | Portsmouth | Christopher Foster | for |
| 33 | Rochester | James Langstaff | absent |
| 34 | St Albans | Alan Smith | for |
| 35 | St Edmundsbury & Ipswich | Martin Seeley | for |
| 36 | Salisbury | Nicholas Holtam | for |
| 37 | Sheffield | vacant | see vacant |
| 38 | Sodor & Man | vacant | see vacant |
| 39 | Southwark | Christopher Chessun | absent – but intended to abstain |
| 40 | Southwell & Nottingham | Paul Williams | for |
| 41 | Truro | Timothy Thornton | for |
| 42 | Worcester | John Inge | for |
| 43 | Dover | Trevor Willmott | for |
| 44 | Forces | Nigel Stock | for |
| 45 | Fulham | Jonathan Baker | for |
| 46 | Willesden | Peter Broadbent | for |
| 47 | Southampton | Jonathan Frost | for |
| 48 | Ludlow | Alistair Magowan | for |
| 49 | Lynn | Jonathan Meyrick | for |
| 50 | Warrington | Richard Blackburn | absent |
| 51 | Huddersfield | Jonathan Gibbs | for |
| 52 | Stockport | Elizabeth Lane | for |
| 53 | Beverley | Glyn Webster | for |
OneBodyOneFaith Archbishops’ bold proposal for radical inclusion
OneBodyOneFaith welcomes the Church of England Archbishops’ bold proposal for a new and inclusive process following defeat of GS2055
In response to the joint letter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York released today, Canon Jeremy Pemberton, Chair of OneBodyOneFaith said, “The joint letter from both Archbishops to Church of England synod members is a bold and welcome response to address the disjunction between the House of Bishops and Houses of Clergy and Laity in their understanding of and response to human sexuality. We applaud the tone set by Archbishop Justin as he seeks ‘a radical new Christian inclusion’ and his affirmation that, ‘no person is a problem or an issue [because] people are made in the image of God.’ In this we find echoed our own vision, longing for Christ’s body to be one, finding unity in a diversity which includes all whom Christ has called, that they might participate in God’s mission, leading to transformation for our world.”
“For Bishops to consult with local synod representatives in how to establish a way forward on human sexuality that is ‘about love, joy and celebration of our common humanity’ will indeed be a significant change. We note with satisfaction the intention that the Pastoral Oversight group and the group that work on the large scale teaching document that will provide for ‘good, healthy flourishing relationships’ reflecting a ‘21st Century understanding of being human and being sexual’ will be ‘fully inclusive’. We take ‘fully inclusive’ in this context to mean that in both groups will be represented those who would affirm OneBodyOneFaith’s statement of conviction:
‘that human sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity in all their richness are gifts of God gladly to be accepted, enjoyed and honoured as a way of both expressing and growing in love, in accordance with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.’
And that:
‘it is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of the same sex, but also to express that love fully in a personal sexual relationship; We believe that expressing our gender and sexuality with integrity is important as a way to grow in love and discipleship.’
”The Archbishops have set an ambitious task for members of the Church of England; they are right to recognise its urgency. A process involving lay, presbyteral and episcopal members of synod will be far more representative. OneBodyOneFaith reminds the Archbishops that the homophobia long present in the Church of England has skewed its population and that this needs to be taken into account in Diocesan consultations, in the development of pastoral practices, and in formulating the wide ranging and inclusive new teaching document on human sexuality.
Tracey Byrne, Chief Executive of OneBodyOneFaith explained, “Care needs to be taken that a process which focusses on synod members will represent and reflect the interests of the whole of the Church of England and is mindful of the needs of the nation. To that end, this process needs to involve Anglicans who are not part of synod. The process needs to allow each participant to speak without fear for their own safety or fear of recrimination. OneBodyOneFaith stands ready to resource the Church of England as it embarks on this process of embodying more deeply the radical and transforming love shown by God in Christ which is for all.”
Press reports
Harriet Sherwood The Guardian Church of England bishops seek to repair divisions over same-sex relationships
Yorkshire Post Archbishop of York calls for ‘radical’ steps by Church
21 Commentsupdated Friday
Official press release: Culture change for seven days a week faith welcomed by General Synod
Official summary of the day’s business: General Synod February Group of Sessions 2017: Thursday
The text of Gavin Oldham’s motion is not included in the summary; as amended and passed by Synod it was:
That this Synod, considering the ratio of time and money spent in administration to that spent in mission to be too high throughout the Church of England, and noting the very effective facilities provided for parish statistics collection and clergy payroll:
(a) confirm that the principle of subsidiarity should not be applied to purely administrative functions; and
(b) request the Archbishops’ Council to develop its current work with dioceses to identify opportunities for nationally provided administrative services which would both release a larger proportion of resources for local growth and mission initiatives and generate economies for the whole Church.
Press reports
Zachary Guiliano The Living Church Synod Turns to Mission
Anglican Communion News Service No easy solution to same-sex marriage issue, secretary general tells C of E Synod
6 CommentsLetter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York following General Synod
16 February 2017
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have written to members of the General Synod setting out the next steps following the vote on General Synod not to take note of the paper on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations.
The letter can be found here.
The full text can be read below:
26 CommentsDear sisters and brothers in Christ,
Following the vote in General Synod not to take note of the paper on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations (GS 2055) we are writing to set out the way forward in the next few months.
First, we want to be clear about some underlying principles. In these discussions no person is a problem, or an issue. People are made in the image of God. All of us, without exception, are loved and called in Christ. There are no ‘problems’, there are simply people called to redeemed humanity in Christ.
How we deal with the real and profound disagreement – put so passionately and so clearly by many at the debate – is the challenge we face as people who all belong to Christ.
To deal with that disagreement and to find ways forward, we need a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church. This must be founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology and the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it; it must be based on good, healthy, flourishing relationships, and in a proper 21st century understanding of being human and of being sexual.
We need to work together – not just the bishops but the whole Church, not excluding anyone – to move forward with confidence.
The way forward needs to be about love, joy and celebration of our common humanity; of our creation in the image of God, of our belonging to Christ – all of us, without exception, without exclusion.
Nevertheless while the principles are straightforward, putting them into practice, as we all know, is not, given the deep disagreements among us.
We are therefore asking first for 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.
As Archbishops we will be establishing a Pastoral Oversight group led by the Bishop of Newcastle, with the task of supporting and advising Dioceses on pastoral actions with regard to our current pastoral approach to human sexuality. The group will be inclusive, and will seek to discern the development of pastoral practices, within current arrangements.
Secondly, we, with others, will be formulating proposals for the May House of Bishops for a large scale teaching document around the subject of human sexuality. In an episcopal church a principal responsibility of Bishops is the teaching ministry of the church, and the guarding of the deposit of faith that we have all inherited. The teaching document must thus ultimately come from the Bishops. However, all episcopal ministry must be exercised with all the people of God, lay and ordained, and thus our proposals will ensure a wide ranging and fully inclusive approach, both in subject matter and in those who work on it.
We will also be suggesting to the Business Committee a debate in general terms on the issues of marriage and human sexuality. We wish to give the General Synod an opportunity to consider together those things we do affirm.
In the meantime, we commend to your prayers our common concern for every member of this church, of all views, and most especially our concern for the mission of God to which we are called by the Father, for which we are made ready by the Son, and in which we are equipped by the Holy Spirit.
+ Justin Cantuar: +Sentamu Eboracensis
Updated Friday
Press reports are listed here.
Take Note Debate Voted Down
Inclusive Church in partnership with the General Synod Human Sexuality Group shares this press release in response to the General Synod vote in February 2017.
“We are pleased and relieved that General Synod have heard our concerns, and voted NOT to Take Note. This means that we can now look at new ways of working together to produce a fresh approach to how we embrace and celebrate the lives and loves of LGBTI people. We hope that the Church of England will now be more honest about the diversity of views that are sincerely held on this issue, so that we can look at how we might best present an inclusive vision of the Body of Christ to the nation.
We are particularly grateful that both the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Bishops’ Reflections Group (the Rt Revd Graham James and the Rt Revd Pete Broadbent) have acknowledged and apologised for the pain that this report had caused so many of us.”
Jayne Ozanne and Giles Goddard, Chair of Human Sexuality Group
Alan Wilson Back to the Holy Drawing Board, with some relief
For a body as conventionally set up as the Church of England General Synod, all its structures loaded to express deference, yesterday’s result was something of a shock to the system.
Many episcopal colleagues could feel disappointed that the clergy did not buy a report that had already been announced to the rest of the Communion from the top as Church policy, before it had even been to synod.
This kind of bloody nose may stir memories of the Anglican Covenant project — another disastrous and ecclesiologically inept attempt to make doctrine through lawyers that backfired.
But every failure brings opportunity…
We now have a chance to following up the Shared Conversations, which were generally good and constructive, properly…
Today’s events in the Church of England are unprecedented, with the refusal of the General Synod to take note of the Report of the House of Bishops’ reflection group, GS2055. Both the defeat of the motion by the House of Clergy and the rebellion against it in the House of Laity send an unequivocal message to the house of Bishops that their approach to human sexuality is lamentably out of step with membership of the Church of England and with the nation…
Modern Church responds to Synod vote on sexuality and marriage
Modern Church welcomes the result of the vote in General Synod this week not to ‘take note’ of the House of Bishops report on Marriage and Same Sex Partnerships after the Shared Conversations.
By rejecting the motion to take note of this report, the General Synod has sent the Bishops back to the drawing board.
Most telling among the many reflections leading up to and during this landmark debate were these:
- the House of Bishops was attempting to manage the situation rather than leading.
- the ‘roadmap’ their report offered was not a route toward ‘good disagreement’ for those putting the case for inclusion.
- the bishops had not adequaltey heard the lived experience of LGBT+ people in the church, their families, friends and supporters, and had not catered for their aspirations for equality.
- the report did not take account of different theological and biblical perspectives.
We are but a few years on from the defeat of the Anglican Covenant by the English Dioceses and the General Synod. This second major defeat can mean only one thing – it is time for the House of Bishops to bring forward legislation which will enable all LGBT+ Christians, whether single, in a civil partnership or married, to be treated with equality in the life of the church.
What might this look like?
Modern Church also welcomes the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement calling for:
a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church… founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology… based on good, healthy, flourishing relationships, and… a proper 21st century understanding of being human and of being sexual.
We look forward to continuing to work to support the excellent and active work of LGBTI Mission, Inclusive Church and One Body One Faith, as they work with the whole church and with the Bishops to discern the way ahead.
Listening to the Synod debate, some of the parameters of a new settlement seem to be clear:
- An authorised liturgy for the blessing of same sex relationships (civil partnerships and civil marriages).
- The end of intrusive questioning for those in or aspiring to ministry who are in a civil partnership or are married to someone of the same gender.
- A ‘mixed economy’ whereby no minister is expected or compelled to act beyond the limits of their own or their congregation’s conscience.
Anything short of this will not do. The road may be yet long but the destination is now in sight and it is time for the Bishops to offer a map to get us there.
Ian Paul Psephizo On Synod, sexuality, and not ‘Taking note’
Gafcon UK GAFCON UK responds to the Synod vote, and offers a new vision for faithful Anglicanism
36 CommentsStatement from the Archbishop of Canterbury following today’s General Synod
Wednesday 15th February 2017
Statement from Archbishop Justin Welby following the General Synod’s vote “not to take note” of a Report by the House of Bishops on the report earlier today on Marriage and Same-Sex Relationships.
“No person is a problem, or an issue. People are made in the image of God. All of us, without exception, are loved and called in Christ. There are no ‘problems’, there are simply people.
How we deal with the real and profound disagreement – put so passionately and so clearly by many at the Church of England’s General Synod debate on marriage and same-sex relationships today – is the challenge we face as people who all belong to Christ.
To deal with that disagreement, to find ways forward, we need a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church. This must be founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology; it must be based on good, healthy, flourishing relationships, and in a proper 21st century understanding of being human and of being sexual.
We need to work together – not just the bishops but the whole Church, not excluding anyone – to move forward with confidence.
The vote today is not the end of the story, nor was it intended to be. As bishops we will think again and go on thinking, and we will seek to do better. We could hardly fail to do so in the light of what was said this afternoon.
The way forward needs to be about love, joy and celebration of our humanity; of our creation in the image of God, of our belonging to Christ – all of us, without exception, without exclusion.”
12 CommentsUpdated Thursday
Scroll down for press reports.
This afternoon General Synod debated Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations: a report from the House of Bishops (GS 2055).
The motion “That the Synod do take note of this report” was defeated.
Voting was by houses, and the motion was lost in the House of Clergy.
| for | against | abstentions | |
| bishops | 43 | 1 | 0 |
| clergy | 93 | 100 | 2 |
| laity | 106 | 83 | 4 |
Official press release following the vote:
Result of the vote on the House of Bishops’ Report
15 February 2017The General Synod of the Church of England has voted “not to take note” of a Report by the House of Bishops following a debate on the report earlier today on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships.
A take note debate is a neutral motion which allows Synod to discuss the content and recommendations contained in a report without committing the Synod to the formal acceptance of any matter.
The vote required simple majorities in each of the three Synodical Houses. A total of 242 people voted in favour of the report 184 against and 6 abstentions – with a majority of Synod members voting to “take note” of the report. However the report failed to obtain a simple majority in the House of Clergy.
The House of Bishops voted 43 in favour and 1 against.
The House of Clergy voted 93 in favour and 100 against with 2 abstentions.
The House of Laity voted 106 in favour and 83 against with 4 abstentions.
With the take note motion now rejected, the Bishops of the Church of England will reflect on the views expressed at the General Synod. The diversity of opinion and strong views expressed, will need to be taken account by the Bishops in their consideration of the discussion going forward.
Responding to the vote, the Rt. Revd. Graham James, the Bishop of Norwich said:
“I can guarantee that the House of Bishops will consider carefully and prayerfully all the contributions made in the debate today.
“When reports come to the General Synod they often come at the end of a process and contain recommendations. This wasn’t that sort of report. The Bishops came to this debate committed to listen. Our report did not bring proposals, it brought a framework and a request for Synod to tell us what they thought. We have listened to those who have spoken, and those others who have made contributions to us directly. Our ongoing discussions will be informed by what members of Synod and the wider church have said as a result of this report.”
Introducing the debate on behalf of the House of Bishops, the Bishop of Norwich said that the report did not make formal proposals but was rather suggesting frameworks where areas needed attention: “The point of a take note debate is that it enables other voices to be heard, including those who believe the framework for further consideration is mistaken or wrongly constructed and needs modification. It is not a vote for approval but an invitation to comment and engage, and the House is listening.”
Setting out the difficulties facing both the House of Bishops and the wider Church in considering the report the Bishop of Norwich said: “There is no simple and easy answer to this issue beyond committing ourselves to engagement with each other when the views on what we should do are profoundly contested.”
The Bishop of Willesden, the Rt. Revd. Pete Broadbent said:
“As I said at the launch of the Report such a debate is on a neutral motion. It allows Synod to discuss the content and recommendations contained in the report. The Synod has declined to take note and so the report in its present form cannot come back to Synod for discussion, though we will still have to find a way forward for the wider discussion.
“We will find this debate a continuing source of disagreement because we haven’t coalesced around an end point. When we legislated for women to be bishops, even those opposed came to the view that the Church of England had to make it possible for women to be bishops in the Church of God according to our canons and formularies. In this debate, we haven’t even begun to find a place where we can coalesce. The Bishops’ Report acknowledges a place of starting. More conversation is needed. We don’t yet know the next stage – nor yet when and whether we can bring any further report to Synod.”
Voting and The House of Bishops Report by a Church of England spokesperson
Press reports
Tim Wyatt Church Times Synod rebuff for Bishops’ report on sexuality
Olivia Rudgard The Telegraph Anglicans come a step closer to gay marriages in church after vote rejects controversial report
[originally headlined “Church of England votes to reject controversial gay marriage report which said union should be between a man and a woman”]
Church of England gay marriage vote thrown into chaos after members ‘get confused and press wrong button’
[This article has been rewritten; the original was published under the headline “Church of England votes for gay marriage after bishop presses wrong button”.]
Harriet Sherwood The Guardian Church of England in turmoil as synod rejects report on same sex relationships
Bishop apologises for accidentally pressing wrong button in vote
Zachary Guiliano The Living Church No Winners
Anglican Communion News Service Church of England’s report on marriage and sexuality suffers setback at Synod
Antony Bushfield Premier General Synod rejects bishops’ sexuality report
BBC News Church of England votes against gay marriage report
Church of England’s rejection of gay marriage report welcomed
Harry Farley Christian Today Church Of England’s Clergy Issue Shock Rebuke To Bishops’ Conservative View On Sexuality
ITV News Church of England votes against same-sex marriage report
Steve Doughty Mail Online Church of England one step closer to gay marriages in church: Vote against bishops’ report that supported ban is hailed as a victory by liberal clergy
28 CommentsAs an alternative to the official studies being looked at by Synod members this afternoon OneBodyOneFaith offer their own case studies, this time involving bishops.
1. Chris is a bishop in a mainly rural Northern diocese. He realised he was gay in his teens, when others were becoming keen on girls and he wasn’t. He never said anything to anybody, and has never had more than close friendships with those men whom he has taken a fancy to. It seems to him that it would be impossible for him to come out now, after so many years, for two main reasons: although he has never lied about his sexuality (in fact he has never said anything at all to colleagues or in job interviews), he feels his reputation as an honest and caring bishop, in a part of the country where straight-talking people seem to him likely to become more wary if they knew he was gay, would be felled at a stroke if he spoke up now. And he is the only child of his elderly and frail mother, whom he believes would be utterly shattered by such a revelation.
Chris supported the House of Bishops Report because he believes strongly in the collective responsibility of the bishops, and, to be completely honest, because ‘no change’ means that he does not have to make any decision about whether to come out at this point.
2. Daniel is a young, single bishop. He thinks he may be bisexual, as he has found himself in close relationships with women and men, though he has only had sex with one woman: he thought he might marry her but it didn’t work out. He has great sympathy with those campaigning for LGBTI inclusion, but dare not come out for fear that his colleagues will think less of him – especially his Archbishop, who does not know anything of his past relationships. He is troubled that the Report makes no mention at all of BTI people – but did not raise this in the brief discussion that was allowed.
Daniel supported the House of Bishops Report as a way of bolstering his own membership of the College of Bishops, which he hopes will enhance his credibility in future discussions. He feels uncomfortable that he is not ready to be the one to speak up against what he considers a weak and rather cowardly report, focusing on the difficulties for the bishops themselves.
3. Jerome is an evangelical bishop. His roots were in the conservative wing, but since his daughter-in-law’s brother came out as gay he has been less convinced that their approach is the right one in the sight of God. He can now see that scripture can be interpreted in more than one way, but still cannot work out how to get ‘past’ the prohibitions in Leviticus and Romans. He carries a great deal of weight in evangelical circles, and is keenly aware of the consequences if he were to declare a change of mind. Others would feel betrayed by him, and he would damage some people’s faith in Christ: a risk he is not prepared to take.
Jerome supported the House of Bishops Report because, although flawed, it represents the best way forward for evangelicals at the moment, and he sincerely hopes it will not distract from the wider mission of the church.
4. Dawn, with her female episcopal colleagues, is new to the College of Bishops. She is still learning the ropes of how things work – or don’t – in practice, and is puzzled and frustrated by how little time there is for real discussion and listening. She is married to a man, and has always seen marriage as a gift from God to be treasured. She would love to whole-heartedly support extending that to couples of the same sex, but is not convinced of the scriptural support for that and therefore could not commend it to the people she serves in her diocese. A large part of her hopes that in time she will be so convinced. She is also very conscious of the tension between feeling a responsibility, as a woman, to support other oppressed groups, and needing to ‘join in’ with the current culture in order to be taken seriously.
Dawn was not happy with the Report but supported it as the best compromise that could be rushed through.
5. Findlay (married, 3 teenage children) is aware of a number of gay and lesbian clergy in his diocese, some of whom are in partnerships, and he does his best to support them discretely. He is deeply troubled by the seeming inability of the House of Bishops as a body to act graciously and purposefully towards such people in such relationships. His diocese is perceived as more ‘liberal’ than some, but he has received considerable correspondence urging him to hold the line on marriage ‘as God has defined it’. Some of the letters have been fierce, unpleasant and have threatened his soul with damnation, but he knows that each writer is trying to be faithful and so tries to hold them in his prayers as compassionately as he can. But he wonders what to do with his considerable anger. He is also concerned not to impose his suggestions for progress towards full inclusion of LGBTI people as a white, straight man.
Findlay supported the Report with a heavy heart and after speaking up against its paucity and flawed logic – how can the mean-spirited tone of such a report invite and expect a change of tone across the church?
1 CommentWe are pleased to publish this article from The Revd Dr Jennifer Strawbridge.
The Bishops’ Report and Scripture: A Missed Opportunity
Jennifer Strawbridge (Associate Professor of New Testament Studies & Caird Fellow in Theology, University of Oxford)
Proof-texting of Scripture is all too common in discussions of human sexuality, but its theological worth is rather limited. The more so, when it is done incorrectly. This is not what the recent publication by the House of Bishops – Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations – has done. In fact, this document makes explicit reference to Scripture only 5 times across its 19 pages of text. However, one of the Pauline passages used to introduce this report is based on an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Apostle. While this misunderstanding does not ultimately affect the content of the report, it does cast a shadow over what follows and represents a missed opportunity for how Scripture can be engaged in such conversations.
The first paragraph of the report states, “As St Paul writes, ‘I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me…’ (Galatians 2.19ff). For St Paul that meant setting aside even the wonderful privilege of Jewish identity and giving priority to the cross and resurrection of Christ. It is in this light that the Church of England has to consider the difficulties over human sexuality that have been a source of tension and division for many years.”
What this introduction misunderstands and misses is twofold. Firstly, in both his letters and in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul is a Jew and identifies clearly as a Jew in the present tense. To state that Paul is “setting aside” his “Jewish identity” misunderstands Paul. Second, such misunderstanding in the very first paragraph means the report misses the nuance of Paul’s writings and the reality that he too is grappling with “tension and division” both within his communities and in terms of his own identity. To recognise such a nuance would make clear that questions of identity are not as simple as this report’s introduction suggests and that identity with Christ is not as simple as “setting aside” one’s identity at birth (which itself is a loaded and potentially harmful assumption in a report on sexuality and identity).
In Philippians 3.4-6, therefore, Paul writes that in terms of confidence “in the flesh”, he has more for he is: “a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews.” Even if these “gains” are now regarded by Paul “as loss because of Christ” (Phil 3.7) and as “rubbish” (3.8), Paul’s Jewish identity is not solely in his past. This is made clearer in Romans 11.1 where Paul states in his defence of God’s promises that “I myself am an Israelite, a descendent of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.” Paul’s testimony before the tribunal in Acts 21 is even more direct, demonstrating unambiguously what the Evangelist thinks of Paul’s identity. Paul begins his defence with the words, “I am a Jew” and then repeats this same claim “in the Hebrew language” in Acts 22 (“I am a Jew”) after which he immediately recounts in the past tense that he previously “persecuted this Way”. Moreover, returning to his letters, Paul counters Corinthian boasting with his own in 2 Corinthians 11.22: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? … I am a better one.”
And here we encounter first-hand the tension in Paul’s identity. Paul is still a Hebrew, an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, in other words, he is a Jew. But he is also a minister of Christ; he is also one who suffers for the sake of the gospel. Paul’s identity is inextricably wrapped up in both.
Furthermore, such tensions can be perceived not only in Paul’s own identity, but also in how he understands the spread of his gospel. Paul over and over again, as “apostle to the Gentiles”, gives priority to the Jews even though he is clear many of them do not recognise Christ as Messiah. In Romans 1.16, he observes that the gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” And in Romans 2.9-10, Paul writes that God’s judgement and God’s glory fall on “the Jew first and also the Greek” for “God shows no partiality.” In fact, “both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (Rom 3.9), “for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to those who call on him” (Rom 10.12). This, of course, doesn’t mean that nothing happened to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 26) or when Christ is revealed to him (1 Cor 15.8; Gal 1.15-17). Neither does it mean that Paul’s language about Jew and Gentile leads to a vision of humanity as “one overcooked stew where all the ingredients taste the same” as Beverly Gaventa clarifies. For “Paul recognizes distinct histories of Jews and Gentiles” (Gaventa 2014, 103). But noting only the division in Paul’s life, as the start of the Bishops’ Report does, is a problem and misses the nuance and the gift of Paul’s wrestling with identity. Paul clearly remains a Jew. Paul clearly identifies himself as Jewish. But Paul has also reconceived who the people of God are after his encounter with the risen Lord. And this is the dimension of Paul’s identity struggles which might be fruitfully engaged by the Bishops’ Report.
Paul’s own words preclude the simple statement that he has set aside his Jewish identity for Christ. Rather, we must see that Paul is trying very hard (and we must acknowledge that he is not always consistent across his letters) to hold together his Jewish identity with the reality that he has, indeed, “been crucified with Christ” and Christ now lives in and defines his life. This tension leads to questions that dominate the Pauline writings: how then do Jew and Gentile relate? What happens to the Law? Does this mean God has broken God’s promises with Israel? And most importantly for this Report: How does Paul hold together the tension that one dies “to the law through the body of Christ” (Rom 7.4) while at the same time claiming in almost the same breath that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Rom 7.12)? How can Paul identify himself both by Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom 6.5; Phil 3.10-11) and as a Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew?
This grappling with understanding of law and of identity that we find clearly in Paul’s letters is evident throughout the Bishops’ Report, phrased explicitly in the stated framework: “Interpreting the existing law and guidance to permit maximum freedom within it, without changes to the law, or the doctrine of the Church” (§1.22). However, by beginning with a misunderstanding of Paul and his identity, this report misses a great opportunity to draw on Paul’s own struggles in a document that is clearly trying to balance both the obvious and the not-so-evident struggles within our Church. Instead, this report has given us a new scriptural text to add to the ever-growing list of those proof-texted, intentionally or not, for the purposes of debate concerning human sexuality. More significantly, the Bishops’ Report divides doctrine from pastoral practice and misses both the chance to wrestle with the “tension and division” inherent in Paul’s mission and the opportunity to ground a statement on human sexuality in theology and more than that, in the depths of holy Scripture.
1 CommentUpdated during the day and on Thursday
See here for the debate on the Bishops’ report.
Late on Tuesday, Synod agreed to changes to Wednesday’s agenda to allow more time for the debate on the Bishops’ report on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships. This will now start at 4.45 pm (instead of 5.30 pm) with the same finishing time of 7.00 pm.
Order paper for the morning session
Order paper for the afternoon session
OneBodyOneFaith have published the case studies to be used in the private group work that Synod members are invited to attend: Church of England Synod – GS2055 case studies.
Before lunch the Bishops of Norwich and Willesden gave presentations in anticipation of the afternoon’s business. The full text of the presentations are available:
The Bishop of Norwich
The Bishop of Willesden
Official press releases
New See to support multi-cultural communities in Leicestershire
General Synod calls on Government to lower maximum stake for Fixed Odds Betting Terminals
Presentations from the Bishop of Norwich and the Bishop of Willesden
Official summary of the day’s business: General Synod February Group of Sessions 2017: Wednesday
Press reports
Zachary Guiliano The Living Church Synod Attracts Protests
14 CommentsThere are two new publications in anticipation of tomorrow’s debate on the Bishops’ report on sexuality.
1. This Open Letter from Open Evangelicals to the Evangelical Group on General Synod has been published today.
On February 2nd 2017 five “open evangelical” members of EGGS (the Evangelical Group on General Synod) wrote to the whole EGGS membership, urging them to reflect and repent on three core issues relating to the “sexuality debate”.
They also asked three key questions which they felt the evangelical community needed to respond to.
Other evangelicals on Synod had also wished to sign the letter, but were unable to as they had not felt able to become members of EGGS due to its hard line on certain issues. It was therefore released for open signature by all evangelicals following the meeting.
The three questions are:
2. OneBodyOneFaith (formerly the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement) have published A time to build in which they seek
Updated during the day and on Wednesday
The following private member’s motion, proposed by Stephen Trott, was defeated.
That this Synod, noting the Registration of Marriages Regulations 2015 and the growing burden and complexity of the legal requirements imposed on members of the clergy who conduct weddings in the Church of England, invite the Archbishops’ Council to bring forward draft legislation to replace ecclesiastical preliminaries to marriage by universal civil preliminaries, such as those which have been in operation in Scotland since 1977, when banns were replaced by a Marriage Schedule issued by the civil registrar.
Voting was by houses, and the motion was lost in all three.
| for | against | abstentions | |
| bishops | 10 | 16 | 0 |
| clergy | 74 | 87 | 0 |
| laity | 79 | 81 | 7 |
Official press release on this debate: General Synod votes to retain marriage banns
Most of the day was devoted to legislation.
Official summary of the day’s business: General Synod February group of sessions 2017: Tuesday
Archbishop of York General Synod Farewell to Sir Andreas Whittam Smith
Press reports
Zachary Guiliano The Living Church No Ban on Banns
A Sleepy Session
Harriet Sherwood The Guardian ‘We must discriminate’: pre-wedding passport checks cause stress, say clergy
Olivia Rudgard The Telegraph Church keeps medieval marriage banns to attract young worshippers
1 CommentUpdated during the day and on Tuesday
The General Synod of the Church of England is meeting in London from Monday 13 to Thursday 16 February. Links to the agenda and papers are here and here.
Order paper for Monday’s business
The final item of business on Monday is Questions. The questions and answers have been published in advance here and Synod will move directly to supplementary questions and answers when it gets to this item of business, which will be at about 5.30 pm.
Harriet Sherwood of The Guardian has been looking at the answer to question 36: C of E warns of ‘corrupting pressures of politics’ in response to Trump fears.
Olivia Rudgard of The Telegraph looks ahead to an item scheduled for Tuesday: Church of England ministers could work beyond the age of 70 to ease recruitment crisis.
Monday’s session starts at 3.00 pm from when there will be a live video stream of the proceedings.
Business included:
Synod agreed to include a Saturday in future dates (from 2018) for its February meetings in London. This will not result in longer meetings, but they will start later in the week.
This motion, marking the 500the anniversary of The Reformation, was passed:
That this Synod, in the context of the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the European Reformation and the Church of England’s understanding of the doctrine of justification as expressed in our historic formularies:
(a) give thanks to God for the rich spiritual blessings that the Reformation brought to the Church of England;
(b) welcome signs of convergence between the churches on the doctrine of salvation, noting Resolution 16.17 of the Anglican Consultative Council in 2016 regarding the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and its relation to the Helsinski Report and ARCIC II’s Salvation and the Church; and
(c) commend initiatives in this anniversary year to foster mutual understanding and reconciliation between churches, for the sake of our deeper renewal in the grace of God and our ability to share the gospel of salvation with all the world.
[Press release: General Synod hails reconciliation as Christians mark 500th anniversary of the Reformation]
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave this presidential address.
Official summary of the day’s business: General Synod February group of sessions 2017: Monday
Press reports
Harriet Sherwood The Guardian Archbishop of Canterbury suggests Brexit ‘in fascist tradition’
Harry Farley Christian Today Trump, Brexit And Fascism Leave UK ‘Savagely Divided’ – Archbishop Of Canterbury
Zachary Guiliano The Living Church Rumbling and Remembering
Patrick Foster The Telegraph Donald Trump is part of a ‘fascist tradition of politics’, says Archbishop
Tom Embury-Dennis Independent Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby links Donald Trump and Brexit to fascism
6 CommentsThis is the text of the letter that has been published tonight. There is an accompanying press release which is copied below the fold.
OPEN LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
February 11th 2017
Dear Fellow Bishop
The Bishops’ Report to Synod on Sexuality
Most retired bishops would be prepared to admit that participation in the synodical processes of the church are not what they most miss about their role as diocesan or suffragan bishops. They also feel some reticence about entering into the current debates occupying their successors on the basis of information that is partial and becomes more and more dated with the passing of the years. There is a dilemma, though: you don’t work for years as a bishop and then easily and suddenly lose the bond you feel for the bishops, your successors and former colleagues. Nor do you lose your concern that the church of which you continue to be a bishop should be faithful in its commendation of the Gospel to the society at large.
So when a report emerges that is the subject of major controversy within the church and society some retired bishops will wish to do what the signatories of this letter are seeking to do, namely to reflect from their particular perspective on what our successors are seeking to say and do about an issue that has been a longstanding source of concern and contention.
Your statement is the product of enormous time and effort, our memories of such situation suggesting perhaps too much time and too much effort. The ‘too much’ comes from the enormous sense of responsibility your document shows to manage a conflict that you and we know causes huge amounts of grief and argument. The result, dare we say, is that whereas it used to be said that bishops often sounded as though they spoke with a pipe in their mouths, now that pipes are rare they sound more as though they see their task as managing – rather than perhaps enabling or leading – the conflicts that are bound to occur. And we remember how exhausting that is, and how it seems to blunt the edge of bishops’ own passionate convictions, which might divide them but also invigorate the conversation.
You write after the Shared Conversations. We well remember having had lots of those, even if they did not have capital letters. But their integrity rested on the assurance that in reporting them the voices of those who participated would not be drowned out by the ‘majority view’ or ‘established position’. Our perception is that while the pain of LGBT people is spoken about in your report, we do not hear its authentic voice. Our experience would lead us to doubt whether there was an expectation around that canons and doctrinal statements would be changed within any reasonable timescale, and that focus seems to have taken far more time than it would have done if the authentic voices of lesbian and gay people had been allowed to express the major focus of their hopes. Going down the road of seeking a change in the law or doctrinal formulation would indeed not have been realistic – but you might not have had to spend as much time explaining why if those other voices had been allowed to come through more clearly.
The result of that focus on the issue of a change in the law is that your call for change of tone and culture, while absolutely right, does not carry conviction. Indeed, from the perhaps luxurious perspective of retirement the tone and culture of your document are incredibly familiar – we’ve been there and talked in that tone of voice, and it prevents calls for a change of culture, of course offered in complete sincerity by you, from ringing true.
We’ll avoid making too many detailed points just now; but hard as you have tried you have really not allowed the theological voice of some of us to be heard properly. In para 8 you draw a contrast between ‘the many who [hold] a conservative view of scripture [for whom] the underlying issue at stake is faithfulness to God’s word’ and others for whom ‘the imperative to read scripture differently stems from a parallel conviction’. If the second group are to recognise their voice in theological conversations their ‘parallel conviction’ needs to be expressed and not just alluded to.
May we end by assuring you that we continue to sympathise with the challenging nature of the task you have in this and other matters. You will receive much negative comment about your report, and we hope that these brief remarks may illuminate the reason for that: it is not that the Shared Conversations were thought to herald changes of law or doctrine; rather there will be deep disappointment that those who are not officially part of your meetings, who experience at first hand the struggles you only allude to, have once again been spoken about by their bishops instead of being enabled to speak in their own voice about their future and the future of the church they belong to and care about.
Yours sincerely in Christ
The Rt Revd Dr David Atkinson, formerly Bishop of Thetford
The Rt Revd Michael Doe, formerly Bishop of Swindon
The Rt Revd Dr Timothy Ellis, formerly Bishop of Grantham
The Rt Revd David Gillett, formerly Bishop of Bolton
The Rt Revd John Gladwin, formerly Bishop of Guildford and of Chelmsford
The Rt Revd Dr Laurie Green, formerly Bishop of Bradwell
The Rt Revd the Lord Harries of Pentregarth DD, formerly Bishop of Oxford
The Rt Revd Stephen Lowe, formerly Bishop of Hulme
The Rt Revd Dr Stephen Platten, formerly Bishop of Wakefield
The Rt Revd John Pritchard, formerly Bishop of Oxford
The Rt Revd Dr Peter Selby, formerly Bishop of Worcester
The Rt Revd Tim Stevens, formerly Bishop of Leicester
The Rt Revd Roy Williamson, formerly Bishop of Bradford and of Southwark
The Rt Revd Martin Wharton CBE, formerly Bishop of Newcastle