Today, the much vaunted ‘King motion’ came before General Synod. The motion, about the compatability of same-sex relationships with christian discipleship, has been discussed at length. The wording was as follows:

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”.

Professor Helen King was unwell and could therefore not be in the chamber, so instead the motion was brought by Professor Muriel Robinson. Robinson spoke very clearly. She called the motion “a point of principle” and acknowledged, “a vote on the motion will show our division – but this is a real division – so let’s face it.” There was also no doubt about the type of same-sex relationship she had in mind, “I cannot personally believe in a God, who creates a world where some of us are LGBTQI+ but denies them the opportunity of a full and loving faithful relationship of the type I have been able to have [with her husband]“

Three amendments were tabled.

The first, moved by Dr Jamie Harrison, sought to avoid a divisive end to this quinquennium. Instead he suggested it would allow this synod to give the incoming synod, “a clear guide of where we’ve been, where we are and where we are going.” So, the wording was changed completely in order to summarise the February 2026 statement from the House of Bishops.

This amendment was supported by the House of Bishops but rejected by both the House of Clergy and the House of Laity.

The second amendment, was brought by the Very Revd Chris Dalliston. He acknowledged the fact that matters of gender and sexuality, “touch on some profound points of difference in our reading of scripture and what it is to be human.” This led him to think the main motion might not recognise the “genuine complexity and conscientious difficulty” many people would have with it. So, he proposed a more nuanced approach:

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.

This amendment was approved by all three Houses of Synod.

The third amendment was not able to be moved, so debate on the newly amended motion continued.

When it came to the final vote, the amended motion did not receive the support of the House of Bishops, so it failed.

As Professor Muriel Robinson said at the start of the debate, this was a motion which revealed the divisions in the General Synod. The following quotes give a flavour of the debate:

“The United Kingdon is currently ranked 22nd out of 49 European countries for LGBTQIA+ rights. We are second from the bottom in Western Europe, in 2015 we were top…. the context in which LGBTQIA+ same-sex attracted people, whatever our theology, are living our lives has been getting more and more difficult. And the Church of England has been talking. Talking about us and fighting about us as the context has been getting tougher and tougher.”

Bishop of Grantham

“In my view this motion unamended will upset the precariously stable place we found five months ago. That would be an unfortunate end to this quinquennium and an unfortunate beginning to the two new working groups…”

Bishop of Sheffield

“These are first order issues on both sides of these debates. We do not agree. We will not agree. And we will not meet in the middle. And it will not be possible to affirm both – because in affirming one you are not going to affirm the other. In affirming one kind of lifestyle you are not going to affirm my kind of lifestyle. You will deeply discourage me. Let’s face reality – this amended motion attempts to affirm everyone – but let’s face reality. We will not make progress in the next quinquennium unless we recognise we can’t do that.”

Revd Vaughan Roberts

“It is imperative that we agree this motion. We must take seriously, the harm we have done in again and again talking about and denying the right to exist of other human beings who find themselves to be made in the image of God and therefore out of that who they love and how that is ordered. Denying some people the sanctity and holiness of married life that is offered to others is a deep injustice. We must right this now.”

Revd Jodie Stowell

“On Friday, in his Presidential Address, the Archbishop of York, directed a portion of his speech to, and I quote, his “LGBTQI friends” and his “conservative friends”, as if those two categories are mutually exclusive. I am both LGBT and conservative. Talk about lived experiences being invisible. And this was said while simultaneously encouraging us to carry one another, as the body of a Christ-centred church. But I left feeling less carried and more cast-aside.”

Miss Laura Oliver

Last month, an Anglican Futures blogger suggested that the result of this motion would be in the hands of the House of Bishops. That proved to be true and the vote was close.

It is encouraging that fourteen out of twenty nine bishops were willing to vote against this motion. To do so in the face of the emotional speeches from the floor will have taken courage and they should be applauded. It is difficult to discern the reasons why people vote against a motion, but it appears that, at the very least, these bishops chose to stand by the process agreed by General Synod in February.