Church Times Synod’s same-sex vote: first reactions
English bishops
Carlisle and Penrith
Chelmsford
Exeter, Crediton and Plymouth
Gloucester
Leicester
Lichfield
Oxford
Salisbury
Truro and St Germans
Warrington
York
Archbishop of Uganda
Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion
Gafcon
Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney
The Church of England Evangelical Council
Anglican Network in Europe
Charlie Bell All About Power: General Synod and the LLF Debate
Keith Sinclair CEEC: What’s next for Evangelicals in the Church of England
EQUAL (The Campaign for Equal Marriage in the Church of England)
Ian Paul What exactly happened at Synod on the Prayers for Love and Faith?
Harriet Sherwood The Guardian Anglicans angry at same-sex blessings question Justin Welby’s ‘fitness to lead’
Could somebody tell me where we can find out the record of what each bishop, priest and lay person voted for at Synod this week? You know, transparency etc.
I’m asking as someone Anglican in the Scottish sense, but just departed from the Church of England because it was no longer a safe space, psychologically for my wife and myself.
I should like to see which people abstained from Jayne’s amendments or opposed them. And I should very much like to see the voting record of the bishops.
Thank you.
Susannah, I believe that those details should be posted in https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/general-synod/agendas-papers/general-synod-february-2023 ‘Business Done, voting results and report of proceedings’ but nothing of Business done has been posted after Tuesday PM
I too will be scouring the lists to see the details. From previous experience the way that the votes are presented requires a bit of research to trace back to the details of the motion or amendment being voted on but worthwhile to persevere as I am sure that is no ones intention to cloud the view.
Not online yet, but when it is I am sure it will be shared.
This information is not available. You could ask each bishop, I guess, and they’d likely invite you to take a long walk off a short pier. But as you are not a member of the Church of England surely it is simply better, having walked away, to put this sort of thing out of your mind and get on with your life?
Well these things are my choice of course, James, and I grant there is wisdom in what you say. Yes I have walked away from the organisation, on simple well-being grounds, but I do care. It’s not like I don’t still have close personal friendships. In the aftermath of last week, I still long for gay and lesbian people to have safe space in the national Church. I still believe in a negotiated settlement, which Peter has consistently argued for, as has Vaughan Roberts. I look to see what Jayne says and does, because to me she was right to… Read more »
Your views are perhaps even more valuable now you have walked away.
I personally don’t believe anyone baptised into the Church of England can leave :). We would still be appropriate.
There is some truth in that. But in the Bible there is sometimes exile. Also, I believe we are baptised into Christ. And I believe the Church is trans-denominational. I have not turned my back on God, just decided to seek some safe space that involves an exile until lesbian people and their relationships are fully respected and accepted by the organisation. I know we are already accepted by God. Yes… I think Karina and I are… ‘appropriate’!
Susannah, the voting records of electronic votes will be on the C of E website in due course. It normally takes a little while. Of course they do not record who voted how, on a show of hands.
Graeme
I’m sure who voted on what will eventually be published, but if the voting was in secret, then how they voted — yes, no, or abstain — on any question, amendment, etc., may not be ascertainable, If they didn’t vote on a particular item, that might be discernable.
With all due respect to to concept of discernment and guidance by the Holy Spirit, in any human institution, politics will always play a role. More so, IMO, if the voting is not in secret.
Susannah – the full voting lists, giving the names of those members of Synod who voted for or against each item of business, or registered an abstention, will be published on the C of E website in due course. They usually appear about two weeks after the conclusion of each group of sessions, with the names of those voting (or abstaining) listed in alphabetical order alongside their synod numbers. Go to the General Synod pages of the website: https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/general-synod/agendas-papers/general-synod-february-2023, scroll down and click on ‘Business done, voting results, and report of proceedings’. (The verbatim ‘Report of Proceedings’, giving the full… Read more »
Thanks David, this is what I thought was done, and I’m grateful to have that confirmed.
I wouldn’t say that I’m surprised with this outcome. Actually; I believe that even ++Justin Welby understood that this would to be the outcome far before the actual passing of this, even if, relatively “neutral” measure. Both the CofE and the larger Anglican Communion will cease to exist like we know them right now, perhaps in a few months to come. At the Communion level, nothing new. The schismatics have long ago warmed that would happen one day, they just needed an ideal excuse day. They’ve got it this week! what surprises me is the internal reaction from the Conservative… Read more »
There will be no legal (ie approved by Parliament) splitting of the Church, and baptizing it as “settlement” doesn’t change facts.
Even if an agreement is signed inside CofE, at least an assent from the King will need to be signed. On whether the King can or not to sign that assent without consulting the Government or the Parliament is another story I don’t have a minimal idea of. This is how CofE works for centuries, as far as I know, and I hope you too!… The King, for example needs to approve the institution of a Bishop on Prime Minister’s purpose, and then, 10 Downing Street, London would announce whom was chosen Other thing is if I envision a mandated… Read more »
I’m afraid your understanding of how C of E bishops are appointed is out of date. Roughly speaking, that is how it used to be done, but things are very different now. There is a selection process involving a body called the Crown Nominations Committee which includes representatives of the local church and diocese. Their recommendation is made to the King via the Prime Minister’s office. The Prime Minster himself has no say in the appointment, but upon the King’s approval of the appointment this is formally announced, as you say, by the Prime Minister’s office.
Many thanks to the kind words, Mr. Rowland. I got my text from my history of the UK reformation back in the day some 30 years ago, so some things would be out of date! And I wholly agree on your other posts in this subject. Things are far more complex than they seem, and on top of that, as I use to say; we’re not on the middle ages anymore. And TBHH; the better this battle is solved on CofE and Anglicanism as a whole, the better for my own RCC to realize we need to solve our problems… Read more »
Thank you also! I’m afraid that Google searches and some other sources are still stating the old arrangement, so it’s entirely understandable that there can be misunderstandings.
Do you really think the PM would pass on a name he didn’t approve of?
I strongly doubt that the PM would have even heard of any of the names put before him!
And his staff would not vet these names to ensure there are no political landmines?
That’s a big and weighty prediction Jose.
Have you been a Church of England congregant for long ?
Nope! An out of box Roman Catholic.
My point is: english people feel CofE irrelevant, but not so the Establishment, Parliament in particular. Not that they care about spiritual things – but as a mark of englishness: “We even have our own Church”.
The 1909 Act delegated Parliament authority over Church to Church herself. But is a delegation; besides, Church Measures still need to be ratified by Parliament.
I do wish people would stop characterising the position of conservatives in such ludicrous terms as those you adopt
We want a mediated settlement. The King is and will remain our greatest friend because he will insist that sincere efforts are made to achieve a negotiated settlement. He will do so because that is the best solution for everybody.
It might not work. You are delusional if you think you do not even have to try
Peter, please, constructing your sentences with all these “wills” and “musts” and telling people they are delusional is not the way we do things! It is Roderick Spode-speak.
Anglicanism has always valued being reasonable and relatively broad-minded, surely, not laying down fiats and trying to push people around.
He is also doing a lot of predicting of what King Charles will and will not do, despite there being no record of His Majesty ever speaking on these issues–which, of course, it would not be constitutionally proper for him to do.
What I have said is that The King, (who has been in public life for over fifty years) is a careful sensible person who will insist on reasonable behaviour.
We know our King. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for me to say.
Please do not mis represent me.
I’m not trying to push anybody around.
You are very particular about my vocabulary. You seem very relaxed about the tone and vocabulary directed at me.
I will take your criticism seriously if I find you chastising those who address me in belligerent and hostile terms.
A “settlement” is what we already have in Scotland – those who want to marry same-sex couples can, and those who don’t, don’t. What you are demanding is to be able to appropriate CofE assets for a reactionary schismatic sect.
Anyone wanting to know the mind of God need only read the comment from the “Anglican” Diocese of Sydney – and believe the opposite. When Sydney Diocese says something is true, you can be sure it isn’t.
I think the lady writing in, I think, the Guardian was very close to the truth when she said that, effectively, the CofE is speaking with two voices – one welcoming and sharing the loving acceptance of God, the other threatening hellfire and damnation for those who don’t obey it. The bible, unfortunately can be made to reflect either, or both according to which bits you emphasise. Unfortunately (for me) one thing life, rather than the evangelical church, has taught me is that there are usually more ways than one of looking at an issue – and in this case,… Read more »
FrDavid H, your thought patterns are a little like my personal emotional reaction to Polly Toynbee’s articles in The Guardian! In reality though my reaction to instantly believe the opposite of what Ms. Toynbee says is a bit like your reaction to Diocese of Sydney; its lazy thinking and lazy polemics. I need to look at the issues, precisely what is said and not said and, argue genuine issues rather than letting someone else act as a proxy for “evil.” Otherwise, particularly as Christians, we make those we disagree with “others” whom can be destroyed rather than accepting them as… Read more »
Sydney Diocese regards all people who don’t agree with them as “others”. Attempts at reason and debate are futile. Since God is a Sydney Anglican, the rest of the world must be wrong.
Thank you for your comments, Peter.
I’ve ended up pretty punch drunk, to be candid, from the abrasion of comments I get in response on this site.
It’s an enormous tonic to know my general aim is at least vaguely apparent.
There is a peaceful settlement to be had – we just have to put down our weapons first
“There is a peaceful settlement to be had – we just have to put down our weapons first.”
So true.
Thank you Susannah.
It’s good to learn you have joined a congregation that is right for you.
I wish you every blessing.
Peter
The statement from the CEEC makes it plain that, despite what some have said here and elsewhere, the conservatives want it all or nothing. I say let them walk away and give them nothing; it’s their choice to leave and abandon everything. They should get no buildings, no reparations. Let them create their own structures.
Well: I’m not on that path, TBHH! As I said on my last post, we are not on the middle ages anymore. On democratic institutions things should to be dealt on an as diplomatic as possible way. Of course those schismatics should to be advised they are on the minority they really are. No doubt. But let the whole thing to be solved on a civilian way. Even though not perfect, the current ongoing organized settlement on the UMC in the US is sort of exemplar JIMHO. Christianity will only to survive as a whole if it leads by the… Read more »
Perhaps the good citizens of other countries would be well advised to leave the Church of England to resolve its own issues. You cannot have the slightest idea of the legal complexities which would result from your suggestion, or the offence that it would cause.
I would appreciate a reminder of the make-up of the Crown Nominations Committee and how matters might apply to considerations of who might be the next Archbishop of Canterbury (and ‘head’ of the so-called Anglican Communion).
I should have said ‘Commission’ not Committee. This answers the first part of your question:
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/crown-nominations-commission-central-members-2022-2027/
This subject has been fully aired on TA and the further details you request can no doubt be tracked down with some delving.
Thank you for your response Rowland. The last line of the document to which you kindly link says: Note: The standing orders linked to above do not yet contain the changes made this week regarding the CNC membership for Canterbury. IIUC, from some delving (including this: https://www.generalsynod.news/post/summary-changes-to-the-membership-of-the-crown-nominations-commission-for-the-see-of-canterburygs-2260 and this: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/GS%202260%20See%20of%20Canterbury%20Crown%20Nominations%20Commission_0.pdf From these I gather that representation of the Anglican Communion on the CNC will increase from 1 to 5, hopefully including bishops, clergy and laity (para 47?) as long as they are the right sort. Hardly the CofE ‘sorting its own issues’ free from thoughts of ‘good citizens of other… Read more »
We all have, and are entitled to, our own views. Of late, TA has felt like a battle ground. I try to strike a note of impartiality among all the strife, but on this subject I agree that this proposal should never have surfaced.
Exactly.
I urged here against the change to the Canterbury CNC, for the very reason that a Communion, non-English presence on any Church of England CNC is entirely improper.
Each province ought to govern itself.
Unfortunately, the Church of England made the mistake of _inviting_ other provinces to influence the selection of an English primate.
Perhaps Parliament should reform the Canterbury CNC as well?
Because that’s the root of a consistent problem: Canterbury putting his Communion role and interests ahead of the interests of his English flock.
Perhaps the good Church of England was well advised over the past 2 decades–including by me in comments here, fwtw–to leave several other provinces to resolve their own issues.
Of course the Church of England failed to do that.
E.g.: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/16693/responding-to-episcopalians-archbishop-of-canterbury-proposes-two-track-church
and
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11833153
It’s a bit late for Canterbury to come to the realization that he has no jurisdiction over other provinces. It would have been good if that ground rule had been emphasized and observed 20-30 years ago.
It wasn’t. No wonder that Communion conservatives are coming for the CofE, now that the shoe is on the other foot.
I’m thankful for your comment. I do not presume to know your convictions but I mean no offence when I say you do not stick out like a “ sore thumb” on this site in the way I generally do ! Of course you may just have an irenic temperament.
I believe there is a developing sense across the divide that if the price of victory is the creation of a wasteland that is too high price.
This is one of those points for which it is quite helpful to consider the mirror image. Why should the liberals not equally be the ones to “walk away” with nothing? They have only to go round the corner to the Methodists to find their structures. I don’t say that either solution would be a good one, merely that the arguments for one seem to apply with equal force to the other.
I don’t say that either approach would be good.
I do say that given the CofE’s own direction of travel, and given Parliament’s increasing interest in reform, one outcome is becoming much more likely than the other.
It isn’t “liberals” demanding separate structures, though. Look at SEC or TEC, or the ACC and those proposing change have ultimately been prepared to accept conservatives being able to opt-out of those changes. It is conservatives who have chosen to walk away. If that’s the bed they make for themselves let them lie in it.
The point was “own structures”, not separate. It’s pretty clear that there is an aspiration on the liberal side to have their own structure, namely the whole of the current Church of England. And my question, hitherto unanswered, is why such a group does not simply move to one of the other structures, such as the Methodist church, that already gives them what they want. In other words, why would the last two sentences of this comment not apply, mutatis mutandis, to the liberal side?
I don’t think any of the “other structures” were formed by those of a more theologically liberal Catholic turn of mind, were they? Historically, it has surely been the holier than thou moralising Puritans who have always been the ones to leave and set up their own denominations. The mainstream of English opinion is, and generally has been, rather liberal-minded by the standard of the times, and that is why the C of E has always been on the liberal edge of the Christian denominational spectrum. That is its particular niche, and has been for centuries. So I think it… Read more »
I am a liberal catholic why on earth do you imagine I would want to join the Methodists just because I agree with them about equal marriage ? I don’t think a serious debate is helped by silly suggestions. I wish the Methodists well but they are not for me. There is a much simpler solution: optional equal marriage for those parishes that want it. If conservative evangelicals can live with High Mass in some parishes why not equal marriage ? I think a very big tent is a great strength of the Church of England not a weakness. Equal… Read more »
Actually the position isn’t symmetrical because Parliament would [probably] be unhappy if liberals were driven out.
For the avoidance of doubt, Kate, authentic conservatives are not intent in driving anybody out.
The claim that could happen is a way of baiting you. Ignore it !
Your statement regarding CEEC and conservatives is a travesty of the truth
I don’t know how else the CEEC statement can be interpreted.
The article by Keith Sinclair and John Dunnett underlines the dangerous and unwise path being trod by the conservative evangelical leadership. They have taken their people up to the cliff edge, talked up how awful it would be if they had to throw themselves off it, and now find that their bluff has been called. We need leaders who can de-escalate the rhetoric and find common ground, yet here is the CEEC talking about how “extremely distressing” and negative this will be. The thoughts of needing to disengage from the C of E and use finance as a weapon are… Read more »
John T I think you’ve put your finger on something there. I take the conservative view, and I came to faith in the Church of England in the 1980s when we had bishops denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and Anglican priest Don Cupitt on the BBC saying that God didn’t really exist at all. If evangelicals can cope with that sort of diversity in the CofE, then we can cope with this. I’ll be talking with my PCC this week about how we, as a local church, can hold a range of views and still graciously disagree. That may… Read more »
You were clearly not paying much attention if you think evangelicals were relaxed about the gibberish which you quote from 1980s
I was there too and I can assure there was plenty said about it
Would that we had Bishops like we had in the 8Os – and earlier – and theologians of the stature of Don Cupitt, we might not be in such a ridiculous mess.
This is pure propaganda.
It bears no more relationship to the conservative position than a mouse does to a whale.
Very well put, John.
I read Charlie Bell’s masterful opinion piece, and found myself thinking in Internet shortcuts: OMG!, GMTA, and others. It was excellent. In particular, this section, “It was embarrassing to watch, and at times quite infuriating, most particularly when hearing the spurious nonsense that suggested gay people having sex would ruin opposite sex marriages. Sorry, folks, but you’ve ruined marriage quite enough by yourselves – it ain’t us who have increased the divorce rate – and are your relationships really that fragile?” Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. For conservative straight people to use that argument is hypocrisy and shifting blame.… Read more »
I suspect many of the parishes the CEEC document is aimed at are already semi-detached and not paying a full common fund. I suspect a few ordinands and potential ordinands will withdraw. Perhaps some clergy will resign or take early retirement. Within that constituency there will inevitably hard liners and more moderate voices. Some may find their PCC’s less keen on radical separation than them. Some cons Evo Laity will depart for FIEC churches and the like..The complementarians already have their flying bishop, perhaps his writ can be extended. We await the dust settling before we can have a clearer… Read more »
I think the way I see this is that of a sailing yacht changing direction. It’s position doesn’t change but the direction it is facing does. For those of us with a progressive outlook, we see that the position of the yacht hasn’t changed and lament that it will take at least a decade before the position might change. At the same time, evangelicals see that the direction of the yacht has changed and lament. Both sides are very unhappy. There is no unity. Progressives are leaving the church; evangelicals will leave the church; the Anglican Communion will probably split.… Read more »
I don’t think it’s a good idea to talk like that. English Protestantism has been uniquely fissiparous, hasn’t it? Our self-righteous holier than thou Puritan types have caused split after split, and Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Unitarians, Methodists, Pentecostalists, you name whatever else all seem to have issued forth from the endlessly sectarian mindset of the English-speaking countries. This is something quite unlike the church history of the rest of Europe, where splits and new denominations have been far fewer, and always seems to stem from the same cocksure simplistic mentality that we are seeing on show today. If people want… Read more »
None of this ideal, but I agree with everything you have said. They say “Death concentrates the mind.” I think by July people’s minds may have been concentrated further, and I believe it’s really important that people with divergent views (like Jayne and Vaughan, like Peter or yourself here) start exploring the option the bishops weren’t even prepared to have on their agenda. As Peter says, people need to put down weapons and start praying and working for peace. If the outcome of a settlement is *some* church communities are allowed to marry gay people, then that has to be… Read more »
My response to the Synod vote on LLF was to leave the Church of England – for personal reasons with my wife, and to keep ourselves safe. With the prospect of this dreadful discrimination continuing in the Church of England for years to come, it was time to look after ourselves. (I know that sounds a bit weak and snowflake, but only we know our limits and the impact things may have on wellbeing.) So this morning, prompted by Kelvin, I took up his invitation to join in worship with the members of St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow. I am a… Read more »
Dear Susannah, I am also a Scot. A year ago I found my way to the local URC here in my local town which,unbeknown to me at the time, has a gay partnered pastor and is currently in the process of acquiring a licence for same-sex weddings. Leaving the C of E (in retirement) was prompted by a recurrence of my bipolar; but was in fact the culmination of a 5-year period of intense struggle following decades of seeing how increasingly abusive the institution was/still is towards the human rights of LGBTI+ believers. Through God’s grace I have now been… Read more »
What a lovely word of encouragement. Thank you. I think you’re right. Our spiritual well-being is so precious, if we are to flourish and prosper in love in our lives. And opening to love is also opening to feelings and vulnerability. It’s vital to feel safe – physically, emotionally, psychological – if we possibly can. It’s important not to feel subverted or devalued. And so, yes, safe space is sometimes really important, and unsafe spaces may be endured for a time, but the harm and subversion can be accumulative over time. When the Church imposes incongruity on who we know… Read more »
Susannah, May you truly find peace and blessing in your new church (kirk?) I myself know how hard it can be to leave a house of worship (a synagogue, in my case) that was a spiritual home for a long time, and find a new house of worship that feels like home. In my case, it was because I found myself suddenly to be a stranger in a strange land. To use Kate’s analogy, the yacht was the same, but the skipper had suddenly altered course. So I wish the best for you and your wife. And, no, it is… Read more »
Did the Archbishop of Canterbury just throw the entire United Kingdom under a theological bus?
https://inews.co.uk/news/justin-welby-african-anglicans-threatened-mps-during-gay-marriage-battle-2144568
Another terrible day for worldwide Anglican believers. https://anglicanmainstream.org/welby-pulling-canterbury-out-anglican-instruments-of-communion/
Thanks for this link Peter. I have now started a new TA article on the ACC meeting. Please could further discussion of what was, or was not, said in Accra, be placed on that thread, not here.
Many thanks for this link. If there is more to the story than archiepiscopal rhetoric, then this might even be a positive development. Regardless of the debates about marriage, my primary objections to successive archbishops turning Lambeth into some cut-price Vatican have been: (i) the presumption that ‘leadership’ has to come from Europe; (ii) the effrontery of ‘leadership’ emanating from a country where ‘Anglicanism’ is in deep decline, and now accounts for only a very small percentage of the worldwide total; (iii) the assumption of leadership distracting archbishops, largely uselessly, from their primary obligations to their own diocese and province… Read more »
I agree. FWIW, I wrote a piece in Pro Ecclesia (with Oliver O’Donovan et al) probably two decades ago now, calling for this kind of outcome.
Maybe so – but it will make clearer that ABC’s primer responsability is towards English people. That’s a good outcome.
I “jumped the gun” posting the link.
Simon has set up, with customary thoroughness, a comprehensive digest and separate thread for this topic
Is the Anglican Communion really set up for the glory of God? Or is it there to promote the political aspirations of senior clergy? The way it was built as a neo-colonial organisation strongly suggests the latter. Contact between Christians in different nations is positive but does it really need something political like the Anglican Communion? I think not.
I have no particular view on structures in the sense that if they work that is fine.
I think the general view of Christians from around the world is important, however it finds expression.
Would that include Christians in Europe? Because the churches that the C of E (and therefore Conservative Evangelicals) is in communion with – the Old Catholics and Lutherans of the continent – have been blessing same-sex marriages for some time already, without Con Evos demanding to break the communion agreements. The churches we are not in communion with are the ones who don’t bless same-sex couples…