Andrew Goddard has gathered the detailed voting data from February’s General Synod debate on Living in Love and Faith into a convenient Airtable database format and has written a Narrative Account & Analysis* of these votes. The latter includes at the end advice on how to use the database for your own analysis.
He has also published this series of three articles on Fulcrum taking stock of where we are now in the LLF process.
LLF: Recent Past, Present & Future – Part One – Looking back – The Bishops’ Response to LLF and Synod’s Response to the Bishops
LLF: Recent Past, Present & Future – Part Two – Looking at the issues
LLF: Recent Past, Present & Future – Part Three – Looking ahead – where do we go from here?
* Note: the tables in the The House of Laity section on pages 13 and 14 of the Account & Analysis incorrectly refer to clergy instead of laity.
<rant> LLF was actually about gender identity and trans people, you know – not just gay and lesbian relationships? Not a single mention in any of Andrew’s three articles. Yet again. I aired my disappointment yesterday on a different thread, at the way trans people’s pastoral care has been sidelined in a state of limbo in the LLF process and by the Next Steps group of bishops. They promised to set up a working group including trans people to look at their pastoral care… 15 months ago. It hasn’t happened. I realise Synod was focussing on gay marriage issues, and… Read more »
I agree Susannah. A thoughtful and valuable post thank you.
I agree with Susannah’s critique but would also want to suggest that in terms of what Andrew Goddard describes as the ‘third option’ it is impossible to see how, given the immediate and total rejection of what is currently on the table, there is any possible level of ‘reception’ that will be acceptable to what he also describes as the ‘significant minority.’ This group, as has become obvious, were never going to accept any change whatsoever, and it would be have been better if they had said so upfront. I am pleased, however, that he has, in his analysis, largely… Read more »
Andrew seems to prefer delay. Given the thin gruel on offer, if the bishops proposed delay then I think progressives could revolt. Reading the room, that will also happen if gay clergy are expected still to remain celibate.
I think that the debate on LLF should cause us to focus on the role of bishops within the Church of England. I am not an expert on this subject so I hope others who are more knowledgable might respond. 1. Does the appointment system work well ? Should it be more transparent? Can the Church of England learn lessons from.other provinces? Is there an inbuilt bias in favour of conservatives or liberals ? 2. Once appointed should Bishops be accountable and to whom ? God, the Archbishop, the King, opinion within the Diocese ? Is the House of Bishops… Read more »
I am not sure what you mean that “Issues in Human Sexuality” was not a topic – LLF was more a process than a consultation. In General Synod at least one direct question was asked about “Issues in Human Sexuality” and a Private Members Motion was tabled following the response. I was an “LLF advocate” helping people to engage with the process and “Issues” certainly came up in conversation. “Issues in Human Sexuality” was referenced several times in the LLF book and more widely in the LLF resources and library. What do you think should have happened with “Issues”?
I agree David. The bishops have had six years to decide a way forward and to build a consensus behind it. That we are where we are reveals a complete failure in leadership. They have a couple of months to pull a rabbit out of the hat but if they don’t do so then confidence in the bishops’ ability, already in doubt, will fall even further. What you don’t ask is, at what point is the church’s confidence in the bishops so impaired that it reaches a crisis? As to your first question, a partial answer is that it is… Read more »
A couple of things on Andrew Goddard’s analysis (which it is certainly useful to have). Firstly is he aware how provocative “revisionist” is as a word in this context – it is a word which creates distance rather than dialogue and would be best avoided by those seeking to retain and/or rebuild relationships.
Second, most of the votes in the last Synod were test votes or indicative votes – which is useful for the general analysis. A substantive motion, for example on marriage of same sex couples, would have engendered a rather different debate – and perhaps subtly different voting.
Revisionist: a supporter of a policy of revision or modification. Surely those calling for change in the Church of England are by definition revisionists.
And those who advocate continued discrimination against gay people are by definition homophobes yet somehow conservatives aren’t particularly happy owning that descriptor.
Revisionism has connotations of playing fast and loose with the facts in order to make them fit an ideological agenda a la David Irving, the Holocaust denier whose sympathisers described him as a “revisionist historian”. It’s understandable that the reactionary elements in the church are keen to make the label stick and that those to whom it is applied reject it.
“Traditional or Revisionist – LGBTI+ Anglicans and the Teaching Document” by Colin Coward. Colin Coward seems happy enough to use the word on his blog “ Unadulterated Love.
Bob – I use the word ‘revisionist’ with a very cynical tongue in my cheek. It’s not always visible on the page.
Homophobe paralleled with revisionist – that’s a reasonable polarity. I take the use of ‘revisionist’ to describe me as a term of abuse. I think the whole con-evo CEEC agenda is revisionist – a corrupt revision of the essence of Jesus’ teaching.
We should avoid describing people in language which they do not use to describe themselves. It’s common courtesy, which is needed in this debate if we are to find any common ground. I do not know anyone on the progressive/inclusive side who refer to themselves as revisionists.
Revisionist is typically used as a euphemism for apostate. Those who use it know how it will be heard by those who agree with them.
Maybe a bit like William Laud marking people as “O” for orthodox and “H” for heterodox.
Wasn’t it O (Orthodox) and P (Puritan)?
I am not sure why revisionist is regarded as provocative. Surely to be a revisionist is a worthy and respectable vocation. Such a word is only provocative if you allow yourself to be provoked. Much better to accept and claim the label proudly.
Surely Jesus was a revisionist in the best sense of the word – faithful to the law and tradition to the deepest possible extent, while showing us a completely different way of fulfilling it.
I was sort of trying to do that, Simon, when I used the word, but in truth, it’s used by conservatives as a term of offence and I don’t think it should be tolerated. I am not revising anything, I’m reclaiming and recovering deepest truths and values – God’s unconditional, intimate, infinite love.
In the same way those who hold to the view that marriage is between one man and one woman (the current position recently re-affirmed by General Synod) are described as homophobic. It is a term of offence and I don’t think it should be tolerated.
In your description of God’s love you left out sacrificial. A very important aspect as Easter approaches.
It’s a term of accuracy. Is the problem that you don’t think homophobia exists, or that you think that because you have a theological excuse for it your homophobia doesn’t count?
“Homophobia” is not always a helpful word because different people use different effective definitions. The LLF book defines homophobia as “sexual prejudice against gay/lesbian people; it is not a phobia in the strict sense and fear may be only one of the negative feelings experienced or expressed towards gay/lesbian people. Homophobia may be internalised by gay/lesbian people so that they experience negative feelings and attitudes towards themselves in relation to their sexual identity.” That is quite a complex constellation of ideas. This definition refers to several different sets of feelings – those felt in relation to gay/lesbian people, those expressed… Read more »
It’s because holding to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman is not homophobic. Full stop! Calling it that is just an attempt by those who believe differently to shut down discussion of the issue.
The view that it can only be between a man and a woman certainly is homophobic. It’s rooted in the homophobic belief that there is a fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex relationships.
There is a lot of what I would call “rhetorical distancing” across the spectrum of views and experiences. I do not find it helpful. Just taking “revisionist” as a word, it carries an implication that there is a single definite position or understanding carried by those who voted a certain way. And I do not think that is true. The analysis of voting patterns itself shows that there is variation around what might be called a core voting either way.
All human institutions, including the Church are a combination of theory and practice I was raised in the Catholic tradition of the Church of England so I had doubts about whether women could be priests. But the practice of having women priests and bishops dissolved any doubts I had. Women offer a different dynamic to the priesthood and few members of the Church of England would doubt that we have been enormously enriched by their ministry. For me it is a very arid form of Christianity where our moral and theological compass is solely set by what human beings wrote… Read more »