This post will be updated as the meeting proceeds.
The Church of England’s General Synod is meeting this weekend. The timetable is here, the agenda is here and the papers are here.
Live video etc
All sessions are streamed live on YouTube and remain available to view afterwards. Links have been provided in advance.
Order papers
Notice papers
Business Done
Official press releases
Press reports and comment etc
Church Times
Helen King
The Guardian
There has also been a change in the title of the conversion practices fringe: from ‘People Change: Sexual Identity Transformation’, to ‘Journeys of Identity: Faith, Sexuality and Personal Experience’
That’s interesting. It seems the people promoting the ideas behind the meeting have abandoned theological principles and are now promoting salvation by works. And the works in question consist of performing heterosexuality.
Does anyone please know when current General Synod members cease to be members? Is it next week or when the new ones are elected, or some other date?
I see from NP09 Dr Angus and Dr Mason are not standing again. They have extremely different interpretations of the Church Representation Rules and I had hoped they might discuss their differences .
I believe it’s at the end of this July synod – I know it’s before the elections this summer anyway, I think it’s before nominations open as well
Yes, it’s on the dissolution of the current synod on 14 July. From then, until the results of the elections, there are no members of synod, just as there are no MPs between the dissolution of Parliament and the result, in each constituency, of the following General Election. (Quaere whether ex-officio GS members cease, temporarily, to be members of the synod.)
Did the bishops explain why they were going to vote against Professor King’s amended motion?
Fr Dean, I’m taking the opportunity of ‘replying’ to you without answering your question, but relating to the debate/ discussion around Helen King’s Private Member’s Motion I note from the report ‘Business Done; Monday 13 July (morning session)’ that three votes took place in the extended session- two on amendments and one on the amended motion. On points of order each vote was recorded by Houses- one amendment was lost (despite the Bishops being in favour); the other was carried in all Houses. The amended motion was lost as a result of a majority of Bishops voting against. There were… Read more »
I expect the Bishops were following through on their statement in the last synod that they were going to steer the debate in this area. So this PMM was fundamentally unwelcome, regardless of who had proposed it.
Don’t know, I have something a bit like a life so I didn’t follow the debate live. But I wonder whether reading: 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. made enough of the bishops realise that this would be… Read more »
Albanian- 11 Bishops voted IN FAVOUR of the amended motion; 14 Against. The majority of Clergy AND of Laity voted Against. So not a lot of support for your view, but enough to block. Risible incoherence?
I think you have misread the numbers:
Clergy 93 in favour 79 against
Laity 101 in favour 83 against
Actually the majority of Clergy and Laity voted in favour of the amended motion:
Bishops 11 for, 14 against, 4 abstentions
Clergy 93 for, 79 against, 0 abstentions
Laity 101 for, 83 against, 0 abstentions
So the motion was defeated only by a minority of the HoB (14 out of 29 recorded).
And the House has a total membership of 53 less a few vacancies etc, so there were some 20 bishops not present and voting.
Many dioceses have an acting bishop while they are in vacancy. Acting bishops can attend and speak, but not vote.
Exactly. So the potential voting membership of the House is a little below the max, which is 54 (see Peter Owen’s page at http://peterowen.org.uk/articles/gsmembers.html). There are vacancies in London, Liverpool, Bristol, Leeds, Guildford, and Chichester, and non-participation from Lincoln, Salisbury and Derby (see http://peterowen.org.uk/articles/actingbishops.html)
So that is nine of the voting places vacant or unavoidably absent, meaning a max possible current voting membership of 45.
I am pretty sure Salisbury would have voted in favour if allowed (whether Stephen or Karen).
Also vacancy in Oxford.
Thanks. Steven Croft retires from Oxford at the end of July, so technically it is not quite in a vacancy. Of course, the bishop may well be on pre-retirement leave, but that’s another thing (i.e., he still has a vote according to Standing Orders). Ditto, Christopher Chessun at Southwark who retires a few days later. I don’t know if either of them was actually present or not — if not, then, yes, that’s one or two more non-participating bishops. Plausibly they might both have supported the motion.
Simon, Thank you for that correction of what I put to Albanian; I was right I think in what I put to Fr Dean, with whom I agree in his reply to Albanian! Voting of the bishops (and their not voting) shows clearly the ‘distance’ between them and us- a distrust to be addressed. I’m about to look at the reports on that discussion- maybe tomorrow …
To strain at gnats whilst swallowing camels?
In my opinion the bishops ought to have more important things to fret about than the bedroom antics of consenting adults: poverty; injustice and war should keep them out of mischief for a while.
They bang on about all that stuff too, to world-transformative effect though, don’t they.
OF course – transparently Christianity has NOTHING to say about sexual ethics. Promiscuity, ‘sex-work’, pansexuality, polyamory, both simultaneous and sequential. All cool with J-man as long as it’s consensual.
The motion and the amended motion both used the wording “committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships”. Surprised you missed out incest and bestiality, Openmind. They’ve been mentioned by conservatives/traditionalists trying to stir up hatred, in some meetings I’ve been at. When are people going to stop messing around and acknowledge that we are talking here about people who show their commitment by entering the legally accepted states of civil partnership and marriage?
I’m butting in here, but isn’t the problem (some might say genius) of the wording its ambiguity? I have a ‘committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship’ with my son – I would perhaps prefer ‘very close’ to ‘intimate’ but you get the gist. Many people, perhaps especially women, have their WhatsApp buzzing with friendship groups, sibling groups – “besties for life” etc. What is not “committed, faithful, intimate same-sex” about these types of celibate relationship?
Perhaps because when you propose in one way to alter classic Christian teaching on the basis of indentitarian affective individualism, rather than scripture, you open the door to any and every such alteration, based on self-defined and asserted identity.
‘God didn’t make a mistake when he made us all’ presumably has no limits.
Since when did what is legal dictate what must be Christianly ethical?
Human beings do horrible things to each other and have done since we evolved. I too am squeamish about polyamory but to compare it to the violence, corruption and injustice that we see in the news every day is risible. The J-man as you affectionately refer to him did not mention queer sexuality at all, he was however forthright on the subject of the remarriage of divorcees and described second and subsequent marriages as adulterous. Conservative evangelicals and ‘traditional’ catholics are strangely quiet on that subject. There are any number of bishops and clerics in ‘adulterous’ marriages but you are… Read more »
Quite the contrary! Sections c and d neatly describe the pragmatic pastoral and theological model successfully developed and implemented by The Methodist Church, after they did the hard work of talking to one another, generally with mutual respect, to understand the range of biblical and theological perspectives, rather than the CoE traditional genius for talking past anyone who belongs to one of the “other traditions” = Silos of comfort!
I suspect that since the end of the LLF process the Bishops simply don’t want to be reminded that gay and lesbian Christians exist, especially those who have the gall to form intimate relationships. Much easier to bury this motion and concentrate on keeping the conservatives on side.
I will let others analyse the debate around Helen King’s paper, and suggest why the bishops voted against. I just want to say to Helen thank you so much for trying.
From a foreign land, I add my thanks, Helen.
This move by the Bishops seems to have passed the press by as far as I can see unlike the failure to commit to a target for rewinding to help the climate crisis.
Is it lucky there is such lack of interest outside the machine of synod, or does it make it easier for mean spirited behaviour to carry the day ?
Helen King’s Monday report makes brilliant but painful reading.