Bishops’ votes on same-sex relationships
on Thursday, 23 July 2026 at 10.33 am by Peter Owen
categorised as Church of England, General Synod
The voting lists from this month’s meeting of General Synod are now available; see separate post. Readers may be particularly interested in how the bishops voted (or did not vote) on Helen King’s private member’s motion on same-sex relationships. The motion, as amended, was
That this Synod
a) affirm that all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ;
b) delight in the lives and ministries of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England;
c) recognise a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England, on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, and;
d) recognise that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry.
It was lost as the bishops voted 14 to 11 against, with 4 abstentions. Here are the names from the published list.
Bishops For
- 002 Cottrell, Stephen [York]
- 011 Francis-Dehqani, Guli [Chelmsford]
- 018 Harrison, Mike [Exeter]
- 032 Frost, Jonathan [Portsmouth]
- 035 Grenfell, Joanne [St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]
- 039 Chessun, Christopher [Southwark]
- 043 Hudson-Wilkin, Rose [Dover]
- 046 Gorick, Martin [Dudley]
- 049 Gorham, Karen [Sherborne]
- 051 Conalty, Julie [Birkenhead]
- 052 Arora, Arun [Kirkstall]
Bishops Against
- 001 Mullally, Sarah [Canterbury]
- 004 Simpson, Rick [Durham]
- 005 Mounstephen, Philip [Winchester]
- 007 Volland, Michael [Birmingham]
- 008 North, Philip [Blackburn]
- 010 Saner-Haigh, Rob [Carlsisle]
- 017 Innes, Robert [Europe]
- 021 Jackson, Richard [Hereford]
- 031 Sellin, Debbie [Peterborough]
- 033 Gibbs, Jonathan [Rochester]
- 037 Wilcox, Pete [Sheffield]
- 040 Williams, Paul [Southwell & Nottingham]
- 050 Duff, Jill [Lancaster]
- 053 Race, Stephen [Beverley]
Bishops Abstaining
- 006 Beasley, Michael [Bath & Wells]
- 019 Treweek, Rachel [Gloucester]
- 024 Ipgrave, Michael [Lichfield]
- 048 Springett, Robert [Tewkesbury]
There are 53 members of the House of Bishops, although some places are vacant. Those who did not vote were:
- 003 vacant [London]
- 009 vacant [Bristol]
- 012 Tanner, Mark [Chester]
- 013 vacant [Chichester]
- 014 Jelley, Sophie [Coventry]
- 015 Lane, Libby [Derby] – on sick leave
- 016 Clark, Sarah [Ely]
- 020 vacant [Guildford]
- 022 vacant [Leeds]
- 023 Snow, Martin [Leicester]
- 025 Conway, Stephen [Lincoln] – suspended
- 026 vacant [Liverpool]
- 027 Walker, David [Manchester]
- 028 Hartley, Helen-Ann [Newcastle]
- 029 Usher, Graham [Norwich]
- 030 vacant [Oxford]
- 034 Rumsey, Andrew [St Albans]
- 036 Lake, Stephen [Salisbury] – stepped back
- 038 Hillas, Patricia [Sodor & Man]
- 041 Williams, David [Truro]
- 042 Nelson, Hugh [Worcester]
- 044 Nelson, Hugh [Forces]
- 045 Hollinghurst, Anne [formerly Aston, but so far as I know still an elected suffragan]
- 047 Baker, Jonathan [Fulham]
Diocesan bishops are numbers 1 to 42; Dover (ex officio) is 43, the Bishop to the Forces is 44, and the elected suffragans are 45 to 53. Note that suffragan bishops who attend Synod to represent their diocese during a vacancy in see are not eligible to vote, unless, like Sherborne, they happen to also be one of the elected suffragans.
Thanks for this list. Hugh Nelson is now Bishop of Worcester is he not?
You are quite correct; I’ve amended my post. He is also Bishop to the Forces, but I don’t think that gives him two votes.
Oxford (in vacancy) was represented at synod by the Bishop of Dorchester who had no vote.
I’ve updated the Oxford entry. Although I knew that Croft was due to retire this month, I didn’t know precisely when. Dioceses are often very vague about retirement dates, and the Oxford website still lists Croft as their bishop.
He gave his valedictory speech in the House of Lords on 23 July so I think any confusion perfectly reasonable.
Anne Hollinghust is an Assistant Bishop in Lichfield – this was arranged when she became principal of Queens. Perhaps to enable her to remain on General Synod?
That would work provided she is also a member of the Lichfield house of bishops, which presumably she is. It also allows her to go on the Lichfield confirmation rota.
Yes, she’s in the Lichfield HoB. I don’t think she’s done any confirmations so far, but she has a very busy day job!
I have seen it reported (on very reliable authority) that Anne Hollinghurst was ill and therefore absent.
I think Andrew Rumsey (st Albans) is on sabbatical before starting in his new posting, which is a pity. Whilst his sabbatical is well deserved I think he might well have voted in favour if present.
This confirms my belief that this vote was decided by the random chance of who was not in the room on the day.
Did those who did not vote or abstained think this was a matter of little importance? Spineless. Sarah Mullally voted against. That will return to haunt her.
Surely this is the result of a mis-constructed final proposal. Parts (A),(C),(D) declare: This synod – a) affirm that all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ; c) recognise a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England, on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, d) recognise that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with… Read more »
Quite. I don’t know what Helen’s original motion was, or whether it was then amended, but as presented it was indeed as you describe.
This kind of issue has a way of creating a foggy mind.
The amendment was intended to answer those who had commented ahead of the debate that they do have ‘fundamental objections’, and that they therefore could not vote for the original motion (the wording was of course explicitly recalling the 1975 vote on women – if you didn’t agree you just voted against). At the same time the wording was expanded to emphasise the original pastoral intent behind proposing it as something positive for those most bruised by the last five years of Synod debates. Hence explicit recognition of the existence of other convictions, while also keeping the statement that we… Read more »
Thanks for the clarifying the original motion. I think the amended motion muddied the water considerably. I have no idea who inserted it, maybe the intent was to muddy the waters, or maybe it was well intentioned but not properly thought through. I won’t add to Rerum Novarum’s explanation of the muddying. For the record, I do not think it is legitimate to consider committed, faithfull, intimate same sex people to be outside of the Body of Christ. Those who hold such views should consider their position, I don’t think the Roman Catholics woudl welcome them much either. Maybe they… Read more »
If the amendment had simply recognised the existence of a variety of convictions around the holiness or sinfulness of same sex intimate relationships, then I think it would have received widespread assent. Although whether such a ‘statement of the obvious’ would have offered anything creative to the debate is another matter. But seeking to accord ‘legitimacy’ to utterly antithetical views was a problem, for those of us who think that the clarity and rationality of church teaching is actually something important.
If the majority of the House of Bishops are homophobic then this should surely lead us to question who are appointed Bishops ? This has implications beyond the Church of England because the Church of England is the established Church in England. The Archbishop of Canterbury crowns our Head of State and Church of England Bishops sit by right in our Upper House of Parliament. I find it completely unacceptable that an established Church should be Homophobic. What sort of message does that give to teenagers struggling with their sexuality ? Homophobia should lead logically to disestablishment.
Extraordinary that you think homophobia is automatically the reason to vote against. Possibly explains the mess this debate is in
I think if you vote against “Affirm that all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ” That is a pretty good definition of homophobic. This issue could hardly be more important. If you vote against this motion (or abstain) then you say that a “loving God” created first and second class human beings. Those allowed to affirm and celebrate their lifelong commitment to a partner in church and those denied that right. I am a hetrosexual man but for me the homophobia of Church of England renders the inclusive message… Read more »
No one voted against “Affirm that….Christ” as an isolated statement.
They voted against it in combination with the other clauses of the motion.
One of which describes as ‘legitimate’ a viewpoint contrary to classic Christianity, assuming that ‘intimate’ includes sexual intimacy.
Maybe some voted against the motion beacuse they saw it as an intentionally ambiguous act of sleight of hand, which sought to define the legitimate range of C of E teaching through a woefully inadequate process.
BTW the Gospels aren’t perhaps so very ‘inclusive’ if you read them closely – e.g. Matthew 7.13-23.
Calling it “classic Christianity” doesn’t exclude it being homophobic.
OK, but the view you describe as ‘homophobic’ is included in the motion as a ‘legitimate’ Christian perspective.
So presumably you too would oppose the motion, since it affirms the legitimacy of this ‘classically Christian’ viewpoint which you go so far as to describe as ‘hateful’?
Bluntly, this motion was an incoherent dog’s breakfast which both revisionists and orthodox should have voted to move on to next business from the outset.
Once again, homophobia is not a mark of orthodoxy.
At last we agree. Orthodox christian ethics, affirming the beautiful revealed truth of God’s purposes for human sexuality within the covenant relationship of marriage between a man and a woman, cannot be a conviction of irrational hatred or fear towards anyone, being nothing but a message of gift and grace from the creator and redeemer of all.
But, again, would you have voted in favour of the amended motion?
Agreed.
Without getting into the specific details – it is perfectly logical to be fully in favour of point (a) in a multi-part motion, whilst voting against it overall if you disagree with part (c). Without knowing the detailed views of all those who voted against I think that it is pretty clear that a motion which contained only clause (a) would have been voted through in favour – and likely unanimously – so saying that those who voted against disagreed with point (a) seems fallacious to me.
You are not quoting the whole motion. Once amended the motion lengthened into four clauses. You only quote the first one here. What if someone fully supports that first affirmation but is not able to support other parts of it? The point has been made by others here.
There was no clause by clause vote. Homosexual sexual intimacy is NOT affirmed by the doctrine of the Church of England. Ambiguity is NOT a Christian virtue. ‘Let your yes by yes and your no be no’, says the Lord of the Church. ‘A little leaven leavens the whole lump’, warns his Apostle – error and sin in one part will permeate everything. That’s where liberal theology goes wrong. Truth is systemic; so is error, eventually.
Right, so let’s expunge the errors of misogyny, homophobia and transphobia from the church.
But wasn’t that just pne of the points? The problem was that if you disagreed with one of them, you had to vote against all.
Let us not loose our ability for rational reason.
The problem I would have had would have been with the acknowledgement, as I understand the words, of the legitimacy of the view that there is some fundamental objection in operation here, going together with proclaiming delight in the lives of those to whom the objection applies. That seems to me to be having it both ways. I think we have to face the question of the fundamental objection. Is it legitimate? Yes or, as I would think, No?
On this question, rather than the current Archbishop of Canterbury, I prefer the former Archbishop of Cape Town, who said “I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this. I am as passionate about this campaign as I ever was about apartheid. For me, it is at the same level” And for those who play the ‘salvation card’ (and who are apparently so concerned about my eternal life that they deny its current state) Archbishop Tutu said “I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry,… Read more »
It is worth knowing the background to Archbishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela and their support for LGBT rights in the new South Africa. Some early ANC leaders initially had anti-gay views typical of the time. But there were a number of gay campaigners and activists in the anti-apartheid movement (both black and white). Over a period of time it was seen that the anti-apartheid fight and the fight for gay rights were two sides of the same coin, and the new South African constitution was written fully integrating LGBT rights. One remarkable story is a Cecil Williams, a prominent white… Read more »
Thank you Simon. It may also be worth noting that Desmond Tutu’s daughter Mpho is a priest married to a woman, Marceline van Furth.
Because of this, in September 2022, the Diocese of Hereford refused Revd Mpho permission to conduct the funeral of her godfather and her father’s friend, the anti-apartheid campaigner Martin Kenyon.
You are right to remind us of that story, Mark. Perhaps it links to what happened in synod last week. Too many people putting obedience to the law and to the establishment over obedience to compassion, and to the heart. I find it poetic that the funeral finally happened in a garden and not a church – very biblical. From the records In September 2022, Rev. Mpho Tutu van Furth — daughter of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and a priest ordained in the US Episcopal Church — was barred by the Church of England from officiating at the funeral of her… Read more »
The decision was a sin far more grievous than any concern about fiddly bits.
Does anybody know if the Bishop of Manchester was present? He has been very vocal in the Lords on such issues on occasion, though I gather from those who know that his record in his diocese is more mixed than might be assumed by those of us who don’t work or live there.
I’d also be very interested to know how +Blackburn and +Beverley negotiate the internal dissonance that inevitably comes when your (apparent) views so starkly contradict the lived reality you see all around you in the special interest group you claim to represent.
+Manchester put the House of Lords as a priority over attending synod. His Lords membership means a great deal to him, apparently.
He is very mixed on LGBT+ issues and has written to his diocese saying he will never use the LLF prayers.
The issue Realist raises over +Blackburn and +Beverley is a fascinating one, but not one, I fear, they will ever help us to understand.
+Leicester was also in the Lords that day.
We have been told repeatedly that + Newcastle was on duty in the HL, not + Manchester on the day of the vote.
Anyone who takes the trouble to read the results of the other, possibly less contentious topics, but nevertheless a vote was called for, will find an average of around twenty, or only slightly over, bishops recorded as voting on 13th July.
In the interests of fairness and accuracy, the Bishop of Manchester was in the HL on 13th July and spoke about the church’s ‘net zero’ policies. As explained on another thread, the Bishop of Newcastle was on duty to say prayers daily for that week.
Thanks Dave. I suspect you’re right about the other two. I’ve pondered this one every time Bishops of that ilk line up to hitch their proverbial wagons to ill-fitting tractors, or start flying temporary flags of convenience (to use a maritime term that is not entirely without relevance given how dubious many of the convenience flag registries can be…), for whatever reason.
Delicately put, but yes, though I see that Fulham wisely sat on the fence.
I see the former Chief Nursing Officer for England voted against gay people. It’s a good job she no longer works for the NHS. She’d be sacked!
No she didn;t. She did not vote for an illogical and inconsistent motion. Maybe she has a brain?
Confirming again a deeply divided church. Who’s enjoying or encouraged by being part of it?
It would be very helpful if these 3 lists could be appended to all future announcements of Diocesan Bishops for the next few years, so that we will have an immediate heads up about the inclusivity (or not) of our incoming shepherd. Apologies if my anxiety is beginning to show, but the Leeds announcement could be any day now…
Your anxiety can definitely be forgiven, and is understandable, Graham. I have a lot of friends in Manchester Diocese. While only a couple of them speak well of things as they are, they are all already anxious about what the regime change may look like.
Good point Graham Holmes. I see the new Bishop of Durham was against the motion. It will be interesting to see what kind of suffragans people like him appoint. The north needs a conservative (headship) evangelical perhaps, and that would fit in with the Bishop of Durham’s declared non inclusive stand.
Sadly I fear in the current C of E politics will determine the appointments, rather than the best person for the post.
Durham hasn’t had a non-evangelical since the glory days of David Jenkins. What used to be a See occupied by distinguished prelates has become a refuge for boring, safe happy-clappies.
I don’t think Tom Wright would be happy to be labelled a ‘happy clappy’!
Why not?
Because it is insulting and inaccurate.
Better a happy-clappy than a dirgy-liturgy or a dreary-weary. Or a glib-lib.
Is he superior to the other happy clappy bishops of Durham?
“best person for the post” is unlikely to include anyone that thinks a significant fraction of their clergy shouldn’t be allowed to preach, much less be ordained, as would be implied by “headship”.
@peterowen Should you not add against Bp Helen-Ann Hartley ‘on duty in the House of Lords’? If present she would almost certainly have been a Yes.
The voting lists relating to Helen King’s Motion ‘tell ‘ us so much and so little. For instance those ‘for’ are headed by the ‘Northern’ Archbishop yet his ‘followers’ are largely ‘Southern’, with the two from the northern Province being Suffragans. (I am always happy to be corrected). The majority of voting Suffragans voted 5 for to 2 against- might this indicate anything? the vote against was ‘headed’ by the ABC- who as has been noted might have been ‘compelled’ by the Equality Act to see things differently when wearing an NHS ‘hat’. In passing, I note that former Safeguarding… Read more »
But compare the voting on item 54 where the geographical divide is different: the Bishop of Winchester leading the voting in favour of the amended Motion and both Archbishops voting against. Some who otherwise had voted substantively now abstained. For anyone who was neither present nor familiar with GS functioning the voting calls for far more careful analysis.
Perhaps Dame Sarah will explain why she voted the way she did.
Hopefully what I’m about to say makes sense. I understand that the previous ABC abstained to try and represent both sides.
.
I would be interested to know why this ABC has different view as keeping all sides happy is part of the job.
She has a brain and a degree of logic.
Presumably those who voted against are brainless.
The incoherence of the motion has been explained clearly eslewhere in this thread.
You asset those who voted against are brainless. You concolude this from my statement that ABC voted against and has a brain. Maybe you also assume those who voted for are brainless.
Indeed you no doubt consider all the GS to be brainless. Interesting novel position, for which I have no counter argument at present, except that I am fairly sure at least one member of the GS has a brain, I just have to go and find it.
I did not assert people are brainless. You did . If the archbishop voted against because she has a brain and possesses logic, then those who voted “for” must be illogically brainless.
How true, even today.
Indubitably, so she should be able to coherently communicate her thinking on this motion.
The more I read of this thread, the more I find publishing the voting figures doesn’t actually shed as much light as we might have hoped. Too many variables, too many clauses to have objected to, though the amendment was accepted and then voted down, which does seem a bit odd, unless different people entered and left the room. So the raw data is not actually as useful as we might want it to be – people can vote against different bits and the data doesn’t tell you that.
‘The amendment was accepted and then voted down, which does seem a bit odd.’
Instinctively, yes.
But logically, one might be drawn to vote in favour of the adoption of an amendment, but then vote against it.
If, for example:
a. You thought that the amended version had a better chance of being defeated than the original, which you also opposed.
and/or
b. You thought that if the amendment were passed, it would be less damaging than the original version being passed.
Sadly clarity is not something the CofE goes in for is it? Mainly in reply to Fr Dean, when Dame Sarah’s appointment was announced I was amazed because I had assumed that the tragic events surrounding the death of Fr Griffin would preclude her. Discussing it later with a very savvy friend who had dealings with her in her role as Chief Nursing Officer , he said he was not at all surprised because she was the corporate candidate and would be the favourite of the Secretary General as no meaningful change would happen. By this hypothesis, as CNO she… Read more »
It would ceratinly be helpful if the ABC clarified her position, and explained why she was not be able to support this particular motion. It is easy to explain, as described elsewhere in this thread (the motion was incoherent), but the optics are bad and she needs to deal with the optics ASAP.
Hints of Starmer/Burnham? Starmer was right, but Burnham has the optics?
What was Starmer ever right about?
Resigning.
Whatever the logic and reasoning that some might have adopted in their voting it does not alter the fact that the bishops who voted against look like a bunch of homophobes. I know that Archbishop Sarah was fully aware of clergy and laity in both dioceses she worked in before who were in same sex relationships and living together and ‘intimate’. ++sarah has the wisdom to know that intimacy isn’t something defined by particular use of some body parts. I can only speculate that she voted against because of fear of what some Primates in other parts of the Communion… Read more »
Andrew, my experience of +Sarah and her pastoral approach aligns with yours. While her reason for voting against the motion may have been politic, I’m more inclined to believe it was because of the ambiguities in the latter parts of the motion.
I do worry that we, on Thinking Anglicans, and in the wider church, concentrate over much on sexuality issues. I acknowledge that some (probably a significant minority) see it as some sort of touchstone of liberality. Whilst respecting them and how they feel, I worry that the witness of the church is being sidelined. There are so many other pressing issues in England and the world today which demand a clear Christian response. Let’s get outward looking, ++Sarah and ++ Stephen. If I believed in the Devil, I would think that he is pressuring us to this navel-gazing, inward looking,… Read more »
Not a “touchstone of liberality”, a touchstone of basic human decency, which equivocation over has done untold damage to the church’s witness.
This is an issue of justice. I don’t think a fight for justice should be abandoned because it’s taking a long time and there are other important things we need to do.
I think LGBT people and their families think this is a pressing issue; it’s one of lived reality, a long way from some sort of abstract ‘navel gazing’.
I think there are two reasons this is a ‘first order issue’ as they say. Firstly, and most importantly (woe to stumbling blocks) because the discrimination keeps people away from church — those directly affected, obviously, but also many others for whom it is a sign that the ‘love’ offered by the church is conditional and thus suspect. Secondly, because historically discrimination on the grounds of sexuality has been the harbinger of wider political oppression (while this may initially be supported by churches they may later be suppressed also).
A little further ‘analysis’ of the voting lists show ‘movements’ of individual bishops between voting on the Amendment (#54) and the Amended Motion (#19).For instance, of the 8 bishops abstaining on the Amendment, 4 went on to vote Against the Amended Motion (Bps Simpson, North, Jackson and Sellin). All 8 bishops that voted Against the Amendment went on to vote Against the Amended Motion, EXCEPT ++Cottrell, who voted FOR the Amended Motion. Of the 12 bishops who voted FOR the Amendment, 3 went on to vote Against the Amended Motion (Bps Mountstephen, Innes and Wilcox). I agree with Ian Black’s… Read more »
My working assumption was that the amended motion was intentionally drafted in such a way that it was likely to fail. Unless shown otherwise, that is my view. It is well known that groups can make bad decisions, particularly where a decision has not undergone reflection and review. Ever read the book ‘Quiet’? Who wrote the amended motion, how quickly did they write it, who reviewed it carefully, where are the review comments on the amended motion, what revisions were made to the amended motion after the review, what was the timeline? It all seems like a poor quality rushed… Read more »
It may be a very good thing that this amended motion was defeated. It says it is ‘legitimate’ to ‘reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry.’ But it is not legitimate to denigrate the relationships of other Christians in this way. It is clearly legitimate to reject same-sex genital acts as ‘compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry’, as (rightly or wrongly) this is the historic belief of the Church. But it is not legitimate to regard the relationships… Read more »
I live in Berlin and a woman has just been murdered because she was a Lesbian and several others have been seriously injured. Just as there is no such thing as a “moderate racist” there is no such as a “moderate homophobe” either you accept all God’s children as equals or you don’t. If you say lesbian and gay Christians cannot get married in Church then you say by definition that they are impaired, second rate human beings. However much you.sugar coat your bigotry, however much you assure us that you “care” if you actually believe that a lesbian couple… Read more »
Shocked that any bishop abstained. No clergy or laity did so. Admittedly, the amended motion was problematic but you either think your view is legitimate or you don’t. If you cannot accept that the opposite view is legitimate, then you clearly vote against. If you think it’s all too muddy, you vote against. I really don’t understand the abstentions.
I don’t tunderstand anything!
Remember clause (d) (d) recognises that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry. So if you vote against it means that you disagree there is a variety of views. On reflection, abstention is the only possible response to such a *&^% of a motion. How on earth the amended motion made light of day, and how on earth GS procedures allowed it, is beyond my pay grade. As I said… Read more »