Living in Love and Faith

You will have seen recent communications about decisions made at the House of Bishops regarding Prayers of Love and Faith and the LLF process. Although all this awaits confirmation at the December House of Bishops and eventually General Synod in February, I’m acutely conscious that the news will have been very difficult for some, especially LGBTQI+ people and those who were hopeful of greater progress. I regret, sincerely, any hurt caused as the church struggles to demonstrate more fully and completely the love of God for those who feel marginalised, those who feel talked about but largely invisible, those whose calling and gifts are not being affirmed. I want to say loudly and clearly that our LGBTQI+ colleagues are valued and have a treasured place in the life of the Diocese. I’m grateful for your contribution and all you do, often with great humility and whilst carrying considerable pain. And let me reaffirm, too, that there is no place at all for ill will or intolerance towards you.

I also recognise that there are those holding to the traditional view of marriage and sexuality who may be disappointed at the lack of hoped for pastoral provision by way of alternative forms of oversight. As I have said many times, you and the churches you represent also have a respected place in our shared life. No one should feel compelled to use the Prayers of Love and Faith if they are not comfortable doing so.

If I may, I’d like to try to explain how I see the position we have arrived at. The options laid before us at the House of Bishops earlier in October by the LLF Programme Board made very clear that, at this point in time, any further changes (such as the use of Prayers of Love and Faith in bespoke services or permission for ordinands and clergy to enter same sex marriages), would require proper consent from General Synod and an accompanying code of practice. The code of practice would, in effect, have considerably altered our ecclesiology through the introduction of separate episcopal structures for a whole range of matters, including sponsoring bishops, the discernment process, ordinations and services of licensing for both lay and ordained roles. Not only would this significantly undermine our Anglican identity – changing the nature of episcopal ministry – but in a diocese like ours, it would also risk fracturing our shared life, putting huge pressure on our Area Scheme and our desire to maintain levels of consistency and a common direction of travel.

I appreciate that for some this might have been a price worth paying, with comparisons made to the Five Guiding Principles and women in the Episcopate. But let me gently remind us that in that case, the decision to consecrate women had gained a two thirds majority in General Synod, and it involved restricting the ministry of women without unravelling diocesan structures. In this case, the proposals (which have not had a two thirds majority in General Synod) would have involved a raft of structural and pastoral provision and would have moved us towards alternative or extended oversight, not on the basis of who a bishop is or what action they may have taken, but purely on the basis of the views they may hold. Arguably, that would have taken us to a level of such complexity that it would risk breaking the Anglican model entirely.

To those who are feeling angry and hurt that, if anything, the Church has gone backwards, not forwards, I acknowledge that you may well be feeling let down about a failure to reach the place of “radical Christian inclusion” promised by ++Justin in 2017. I want gently to remind you, however, that the Church has now authorised the use of prayers of blessing for couples in same sex relationships, and there is open acknowledgement that there are different views among bishops about the nature of same sex relationships. Moreover, as bishops we are committed to working well with one another and respecting the differences amongst us, recognising that there is more than one way of interpreting Scripture and that all views are held sincerely and in good faith – that we are on a journey and need each other as travelling companions, to love and grow and learn together. These are not insignificant changes in a church that tends to think in centuries rather than years or even decades.

And to those who are frustrated or angry at the lack of separate pastoral provision, given there will not be a code of practice because there are to be no substantial changes at this time, I hope that we can move towards greater unity and closer relationships in the Diocese, in keeping with the values of Travelling Well Together. Unlike two or three other dioceses, we did not introduce temporary provision but chose to wait for national decisions, on the basis that we did not know where things would land and that it would be more difficult to roll back on any arrangements made, however short term. I believe that was the right thing to do and I sincerely hope that now, all those who are part of the Diocese will commit to respecting and loving one another across our differences and contributing to our shared life. I’ve used the analogy before – Jesus’ disciples all got into the boat with him – a motley group though they were. Being close to him meant they had to be close to one another, including (perhaps especially) during the storm (Matthew 8, Mark 4, Luke 8); a time of uncertainty and fear, analogous perhaps to what many are feeling now. There are many things over which we have differences of perspective, understanding and theology. Let us strive to be gentle and kind towards one another and to think well of each other, refusing to judge one another because not one of us can see deep into the heart and mind of another; that is for God alone. Our calling is to love one another, walk humbly before God and look outwards, in service, to the needs of the world.