What is Christian Discipleship? A short guide to the King motion

Many, many words have already been written about Professor Helen King's Private Member's Motion that is due to be debated at the Church of England's General Synod on July 13th. This blog offers four observations about the motion and how it might be handled.

The motion is simple, but in Andrew Goddard's words, "slippery":

"That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship."

1) "There are no fundamental objections to..."

Martin Davie has warned that this reflects the wording of a motion passed by General Synod in 1975 - "That this Synod considers that there are no fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood."

In that case, 26% of bishops, 46% of clergy and 38% of laity voted against the motion, which would suggest that a substantial minority believed there were in fact fundamental objections to the issue in question. Despite this logical fallacy, the motion guided and shaped the process over the next seventeen years - with objectors to women's ordination being reminded again and again that the principle had already been decided.

Professor King's motion, should it pass, will likely have a similar impact on any future debates about marriage and same-sex relationships.

2) "... being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship"

This wording is studiously ambiguous and reflects the tangled knots in which the House of Bishops tied themselves when welcoming civil-partnerships in 2005 :

"While many partnerships will no doubt be between gay and lesbian couples who intend to be in a sexual relationship, there is likely to be a range of circumstances in which people of the same sex choose to register a partnership, including some where this is not so."

This has been the flimsy ground on which same-sex relationships have been normalised in the Church of England, amongst both clergy and laity.

Silence on the question of the sexual element of the relationship might mean some will therefore vote in favour of the motion. Yet over time, if this motion passes, the linking of intimacy, faithfulness and commitment means it will come to be interpreted as describing sexual relationships.

3) "...that such a relationship is entirely compatible with Christian discipleship"

The doctrine of the Church of England as expressed in the introduction to the Prayers of Love and Faith is clear:

"The Church of England teaches that Holy Matrimony is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, blessed by God in creation and pointing to the love between Christ and the Church; a way of life which Christ makes holy. It is within marriage that sexual intimacy finds its proper place."

This would appear to preclude the idea that couples who engage in sexual intimacy outside of the marriage union (whativer their sexuality) are living within the bounds of Christian discipleship.

Yet, since 'Issues of Human Sexuality' was published in 1991, the bishops of the Church of England have consistently taught that lay people should have the freedom to enter into sexually active same-sex relationships, and now civil marriage, without fear of discrimination in the church. Clergy cannot refuse baptism, confirmation or holy communion to those in such a relationship and, if they choose, they are free to celebrate the love the couple have for one another using the Prayers of Love and Faith.

Such are the contradictions at the heart of the Church of England's teaching about what true Christian discipleship involves.

4) Will this motion pass at General Synod?

A motion of this kind would only require a simple majority to pass. Previous votes on questions of human sexuality suggest that there is a good chance that this motion, as currently worded, would pass in the House of Clergy and the House of Laity.

The decision would then be in the hands of the House of Bishops. If they vote in favour, then all of the LLF debates about clergy entering into same-sex marriages are reopened, but if they vote against the motion, they risk headlines suggesting they don't think LGBTI+ people can be Christians. Not an easy call.

It is of course possible that the motion will be amended in an attempt to make it clear whether or not the relationships in question are sexually intimate. However, an amendment that speaks of celibate relationships is unlikely to pass in the House of Laity or the House of Clergy, while one that refers to sexual intimacy would make things even harder for the House of Bishops.

Andrew Goddard hopes that it might be possible to, "discern a form of words for a motion that could clarify where there is a wider consensus than we have yet acknowledged." This may be wishful thinking, but suggestions of such a motion would be welcomed in the comments.

If words cannot be found, the wisest course of action for Synod might just be to debate the motion as it now stands and then call for a count of the whole Synod for a move to next business. That would allow the arguments to be made and leave the decision to those elected to the next General Synod in the autumn.

If that doesn't happen there is a danger that the parting shot of this General Synod will be to undermine any meaningful link between the Church of England's understanding of Christian discipleship and the need to be a follower of Christ's teaching.