LLF - Doomsday or D-Day?

Last week, the Synod of the Anglican Convocation of Europe (ACE), one of the three dioceses of the Anglican Network in Europe (ANiE) met in Coventry.  The Rt Revd Paul Donison the General Secreary of Gafcon, the Global Anglican Futures Conference which oversees the proto-Province was the main speaker. During his expositions he reminded delegates that even in the most turbulent of times God continues to be working out his sovereign purposes and that his people need not shy away from such times but instead should prepare for them and persist through them.

As, Donison reflected on the first chapter of Acts, he showed how, in the very early days of the Church, God’s people had faced the darkest of dark times and yet had seen God working through it. The ultimate crisis- that of the cross was not the end but was followed by the glories of the resurrection, ascension and, as we remembered on Sunday, Pentecost.

It was in the context of those experiences that the apostles faced another dark day, forced as they were to consider how to manage the replacement of the errant apostle, Judas. It was, in many ways, the last thing with which the nascent Church needed to be confronted but that did not prevent them from grappling with it in a most practical way.

As the ACE Synod met, news trickled through that the Rt Revd Martyn Snow had resigned from his role as Lead Bishop of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process. In a short statement thanking those who had, "given hours of their time to seek an agreed way forward in the Church of England on matters of sexuality, relationships, and marriage," he admitted that he didn't think, "such an agreement" could be found under his leadership.

Snow's statement was followed by a press release from the Archbishop of York, the Most Revd Stephen Cottrell and the Bishop of London, Rt Revd Sarah Mulalley, thanking him for his "invaluable contribution". They also took the opportunity to make clear that Snow's resignation would not cause them to deviate in any way from continuing to work, "towards becoming a Church that serves all of God's people." The various Working Parties will still meet later this week. According to their statement whatever the outcome of those gatherings, "The LLF Programme Board, chaired by the Archbishop of York, remains firmly committed to completing the diocesan consultations, before reporting to the House of Bishops and then General Synod in February next year."

Some have heralded Bishop Martyn's resignation as a sign that the LLF process is hitting the buffers, a kind of D-Day, marking the beginning of the end for same-sex blessings/marriage in the Church of England. Others are more pessimistic. Bishop Martyn warned the orthodox that the offer of 'Delegated Episcopal Ministry' should not be, "taken lightly in any way at all," and some fear his resignation is due to declining support for this approach amongst the bishops.

The book of Acts teaches that God is always at work so his people must respond with faith and commit to action. Totally consistent with the approach the apostles took to appointing Matthais is to, even in the face a doomsday scenario, plan the way forward as those who are never without hope. It is in that spirit that this blog addresses the stages of the LLF process beyond those already outlined by ++York and +London, and where it all may be headed.

It has long been apparent that one significant step to enabling standalone services of blessing and/or allowing clergy to enter civil same-sex marriage could be for the bishops to agree amongst themselves that it would be an inappropriate use of the Clergy Discipline Measure (or the new Clergy Conduct Measure) to bring proceedings against clergy participating in either of these innovations. And so on Tuesday, 15th July, the last day of the next session of General Synod, the Revd Mae Christie is due to introduce a Private Member's Motion, which reads,

'That this Synod request that the House of Bishops remove any requirements relating to Issues in Human Sexuality from the Vocations (Shared Discernment) Process.

“Issues” as the guidance is known sets a standard of clergy conduct. Accordingly, passing this motion in July would create a vacuum, making it difficult to see how clergy could be found guilty of 'conduct unbecoming' in relation to the CDM should they choose to enter into a same-sex civil marriage. There can be no discipline for breaching a no-longer existent standard.

The motion is half-way there already - Synod nerds will know that the principle it embodies was agreed last year, when it was decided that, "taken together the Pastoral Guidance, the Bishop’s Statement and Code of Practice for pastoral provision will replace 'Issues in Human Sexuality'".

Therefore, the only real question is whether Synod members, particularly the Bishops, will be willing to set aside 'Issues' before the other documents are approved and thereby create the vaccum. Even if it is defeated a reasonable degree of support from diocesan bishops will indicate that any such discipline is unlikely to be applied. For it to be applied uniformly across the dioceses is even less likely. Accordingly, unless the motion is roundly defeated, with little or no support from the House of Bishops, it will be further progress down what this blog has frequently described as 'the travelator' towards a change in the doctrine of marriage.

The next juncture will be the identity of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, whose appointment should be announced in the Autumn. The Diocese of Canterbury have said in their Statement of Needs that they are seeking an Archbishop who will "embrace" both those who "pray for change to enable same-sex partners to marry in the Church of England" and "those who hold the current Church of England teaching on marriage". They are also looking for a man, or woman, who is content that their Cathedral offers the Prayers of Love and Faith. Accepting that the Statement is “merely” that of the diocese, it gives little ground for hope that, in the words of a plea from retired Archbishop, Most Revd Mouneer Anis, the appointee will be, "a shepherd who is unwavering in the faith once delivered to the saints".

Advisory as the Statement may be, it is clear that those representing Canterbury diocese on the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), (the group who will select the next Archbishop), are all among those praying for change. Even if conservative members of the CNC have the numbers to block the appointment of the most progressive candidates, they will not have the votes to appoint, "someone who will uphold the orthodox faith shared by the great majority of global Anglicans" as the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) have demanded. Having seen the names of those selected to represent the wider Anglican Communion, the GSFA wrote an open letter to the Chair of the CNC, setting out the concern that they, "are not at all confident in the process for choosing members of the Crown Nominations Commission from the wider Communion. It appears that, yet again, the convictions of Global South Anglicans will not be given the weight they deserve."

The third stage to consider is the feedback from the diocesan consultations, which will be collated using a centrally prepared presentation that includes a number of multiple choice questions. The questions take for granted the introduction of standalone services and focus instead on the workability of the proposals for delegated episcopal ministry. Here are two of the slides as an example:

Question 4: The use of the Prayers of Love and Faith in your church - with five possible answers:

1) Not discussed the use of PLF

2) Discussed and not opted in

3) Discussed and opted in to current use (private and regular services)

4) Opted in to use the PLF but are waiting for bespoke services

5) Other

6) Not aware/ do not know

Question 6: Please give your opinion on the following statements about the proposals on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree);

I understand the basis of the proposals

I see the need for pastoral reassurance if the PLF are available for standalone/bespoke services

I have concerns that these proposals are too complex to be workable

Pastoral reassurance based on delegated episcopal ministry is only sufficient for the introduction of the standalone PLF, not further changes

I think we need a completely different solution, not the one suggested in the draft proposals

The LLF Team have said the feedback will be used to "help shape the overall proposal" and inform a, "fuller report on themes and recommended responses." This does not suggest a rawly statistical approach but one which 'interprets' the feedback. In a repeat of the approach taken at the Lambeth Conference, this could be described it as the “Delphi Technique with knobs on”.

In such circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the summary being that the majority of responses from the majority of diocesan synods was extremely positive about the introduction of standalone services of blessing (while recognising a significant minority hold a different view). At the same time, however, it is probable that the majority of feedback regarding the provision of delegated episcopal ministry will be negative, because some will think that delegated episcopal oversight is insufficient and others will consider it to be unnecessary or divisive. The asymmetry of the process is obvious.

Again prognosticating in a gloomy fashion, the outcome of all this may well be a proposal to Synod in February 2025, that to reflect the views held by the trinity of the (majority of) dioceses, the House of Bishops and the majority of Synod, a decision must be made on then these all too contentious issues for the good of the Church and/or to fill any void created by the scrapping of 'Issues'.

Due to the necessity of avoiding a vote which requires a two-thirds majority in all three houses - revisionists would want what is commonly known as an 'Up and Down' vote on a simple motion. The motion would give permission to those clergy who wished to offer standalone, or bespoke, services of blessing, with a conscience clause for those not wishing to use them. Alongside, promises would be offered about further work to introduce clergy same-sex civil marriage and greater pastoral provision should further steps be taken.

If it does not sound like being a relentless wet weekend it is hard to see how such an Up and Down vote could produce anything other than a bleak outcome for the orthodox.

It is surely the case that given the breakdown of past votes, a simple majority could be readily achieved in the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy. Thus, the best possible outcome would be for the motion to be defeated by the House of Laity, albeit probably, by a narrow margin. That would do nothing, however, to prevent a second attempt at the same outcome being made early in the next quinquennium. The newly constituted Synod would follow General Synod election in which the voting records of existing members would be clear. Those who had voted against progress and, often, against the majority of their diocesan synod members, would face an electorate totally aware of their stance. Likewise, in what may well be akin to a single issue election, those standing for the first time, the so-called 'clean-skins', will be unlikely to be able, even if they should so wish, to in any way dissemble about how they would vote on any similar motion. In this scenario the conservative Synodical blocking vote could easily fall away. That would be all the more serious if the bishops decided to bite the bullet and seek a two-thirds majority for a change of doctrine in the next quinquennium.

And all this is to ignore the very real alternative, and probably more likely alternative that the Up and Down vote is won, again albeit perhaps narrowly, in February.

If that happens, the window of opportunity for further talks concerning pastoral provision for the orthodox, or even a future settlement, will be slammed shut, with only the barest chink of light from the possibility of litigation in the civil courts remaining as the last resort.

All this may be said to be an unnecessarily negative analysis of how the next fifteen months might unfold,  but those who know the Scriptures will also be aware that when God's people are confronted by disaster, they all too frequently underestimate how deep and long the agony will be.

Meanwhile, Bishop Donison also reminded the ACE Synod of William Barclay's summary of God's promises to the early church - that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy and in constant trouble. The Apostles did indeed live that life and they worked and planned and organised, and once again it could be said, that what men intended for evil, God intended for good.

So, this blog concludes rejoicing in the providence of God and in the flourishing of his harvest, praying that in any looming very dark day all would nevertheless do whatever may be necessary to secure another generation of fruitful Anglican gospel ministry in their part of the vineyard - which as far as it is able, is just happens to be one of the things with which Anglican Futures exists to help.

---

There will be an opportunity to discuss this blog and the events to which it refers

at our 'Close to the Edge' gathering for faithful Anglicans

on Thursday 12th June at 7pm.

Sign up here

If you are unable to join us then, please comment or ask your questions below.