THE next steps in Living in Love and Faith (LLF) require “serious attention to issues of power, trust, honesty, and transparency”, the lead bishop on LLF, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, has said.
In a paper for next month’s meeting of the General Synod, Bishop Snow emphasised the importance of “humility” in the process, and apologised for “those elements of the process which have caused hurt to people across the spectrum of views on LLF”.
He pledged to be as “open as possible” with the Synod, and expressed hope that “we can all agree to renounce all attempts to subvert the process or use our power to override agreed motions of Synod.”
It was announced this month that specific proposals were unlikely to be brought to the Synod for a vote July, as originally planned (News, 24 January). Bishop Snow confirmed that the hold-up was due to the House of Bishops’ not having yet decided whether priests could be permitted to enter into same-sex marriages.
At a press conference on Thursday of last week, Bishop Snow said that he remained “confident” that a decision on this would be made “before too long”.
“I’m personally disappointed by the further delay; it’s not what I would have wanted,” he said, but the process had continually thrown up “new theological questions”.
He acknowledged the depth of disagreement on the issue, but said that “the more we go back into historical sources, the more we go back to reread the Bible, the more we talk about it together, the more we are able to come to clarity.”
Clarity would not, he said, “necessarily bring agreement”, but he hoped and prayed that it would allow for a “clear decision which holds people within the Church”.
The introduction of a form of delegated episcopal ministry, along with stand-alone services of blessing, were both approved, in outline, last July, but have not yet become a reality (News, 12 July 2024).
Among the Synod papers released last week is an overview of how delegated episcopal ministry could work in practice: a “Regional College of Bishops” comprising all the bishops in an area would co-ordinate delegated ministry for churches that requested it. A congregation would be able to ask to receive episcopal ministry (such as confirmations) from a bishop in the region whose stance on LLF they agreed with, but would be expected still to engage with their diocesan bodies on other aspects of church life.
Unlike the system of provincial episcopal visitors for parishes requesting their ministry because of objections to women bishops, no bishop would be employed specifically to provide delegated oversight, but the regional college of bishops would be committed to reflecting “the diversity of traditions”.
A paper from the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) suggests that the concept of “provisionality” might be useful in moving the LLF process out of its current impasse.
With reference to proposed changes to the structure of the Church for the sake of those who oppose the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples, “provisionality means putting arrangements in place that are modest, scale-up-able, and reversible (though also sufficiently secure for confidence)”, the paper says.
The FAOC’s paper recognises the difficulties of finding a solution that is acceptable to all sides, as well as consistent with competing interpretations of what it means to be a united Church, but suggests: “A bearable ecclesiological anomaly may be a price worth paying for attempting to preserve the highest possible degree of communion for as many as possible for as long as possible.”
In an introduction for Synod members, the chairman of the FAOC, the Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, writes that “the present disagreement is not only about theology, but also about the type of disagreement the Church is having about theology.”
The recommendation of provisionality in any settlement is couched as a way to move forward without having to agree about the nature of the disagreement. Viewed in this way, the provision of a form of delegated episcopal ministry “would aim to give those who are convinced that this is an issue pertaining to apostolic of ecclesial communion enough distance for the sake of their conscience and distinctive witness, while not relinquishing other signs and structures of ecclesial communion”, the paper says.
Along with the paper on “ecclesiology, unity and differentiation”, two other documents prepared by the FAOC have been published.
A reflection on “episcopacy and conscience” considers the interplay of each bishop’s individual conscience with a “collegiate conscience” that, the paper suggests, is able to accommodate internal disagreement.
“No individual bishop’s conscience is . . . simply personal, as might be the case for an individual making a decision with limited intuitional impact. The representative nature of the episcopal calling requires a bishop to carry the consciences and convictions for all those for whom that bishop has oversight,” the paper says.
The third document “examines the theological dimensions of holy matrimony, civil marriage, and same-sex marriage within the context of Christian tradition, law, and teaching”.
In his introduction, Dr Innes says that the FAOC “expresses sceptism that a clear distinction between holy matrimony and civil marriage can withstand scrutiny” — a distinction that had been part of the rationale suggested, at the start of the LLF process in the Synod, for allowing priests to enter same-sex civil marriages.
An executive summary of the paper characterises its purpose as to offer a “nuanced framework for dialogue and winsome engagement” on the nature of marriage.