What next for evangelicals in the Church of England?

Yet another proposal in the continuing crisis about the blessing of same-sex couples was debated in July session of General Synod.

It had to be substantively different from the previous proposal, but it had a similar pattern to the one before that. It passed by a narrow margin, with, as Vaughan Roberts insightfully surmised, those in favour of change voting for it and those against change voting against it. Despite chummy overtures, it did not garner the unity it sought to inspire.

Progress was celebrated in terms of tone and the proposal was framed in terms of a trajectory with a timetable. Unsurprisingly, given the short amount of time to find a fresh approach, there was an absence of content and detail. Seemingly in sympathy with this, responses from all sides were peppered with metaphors, parables and allegorical stories. Nevertheless, there were many disconsolate remarks about how much content had not yet been written and yet would be carried by a positive vote. Several speakers maintained that the proposals were not ‘oven ready’.

Martyn Snow, the Bishop of Leicester, who has been leading the process, was resolute that nothing will change until more detailed proposals are brought back to the February 2025 General Synod meeting.

Sam Corley, the Bishop of Stockport and chair of the Pastoral Guidance working group, explained how that group cannot bear the weight of deciding for the church whether clergy can enter same-sex civil marriage. Thus, one of the strands of the motion has commissioned the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC), to carry out further theological work on the doctrine of marriage.

A period of discernment of up to three years will follow the detailed proposals in the February 2025 Synod. During this time, standalone services will permitted for Prayers of Love and Faith, and Pastoral Reassurance will be provided for those who can’t accept the change. It will be possible for orthodox clergy to ask for an orthodox bishop to be delegated to provide pastoral care.

Nothing has changed and nothing will be forced on those who wish to remain faithful to the foundational doctrine of the Church of England. Yet Martyn Snow conceded: ‘There may come a point that we have to look at a formal change in doctrine.’ He believed that point had not yet been reached, and that was why the House of Bishops has not followed the formal process for changing doctrine.

In June, 11 orthodox bishops wrote a letter contending that the formal process (Canon B2) should be followed, which would require a two-thirds majority and thus have no hope of passing.

Immediately following that letter, The Alliance, which represents 2,000 clergy, wrote emphatically to state their conviction that standalone services and the allowance of clergy to enter same-sex civil marriage constitutes a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England. Conversely, the House of Bishops, though now openly divided, has judged that these innovations are not a departure from doctrine in any essential matter.

This session of General Synod has provided clarity, not in detail, but in the harsh reality of division. Many speakers were candid about the incompatibility of the two sides. Laura Oliver astutely observed that members of Synod were past the point of trying to persuade one another. She then captured the theme of the whole debate in her question, ‘would there be a place for me in the Church of England?’ She asked this as a same-sex attracted person who upholds the traditional doctrine of marriage, and concluded that, ‘in trying to keep us together you are forcing us apart.’

Acknowledging complete disagreement, the motion proposed a vision for unity, with an emphasis on tone and empathy. Archbishop Justin Welby argued that both conservatives and revisionists are indispensable (see en opinion, page 7). In this vision, church is redefined as a space for sustaining unity, a forum for a pluralism of privatised convictions, which seems far from ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic’. Whilst the proposals are not oven ready, this principle is baked in and demands compromise.

In order to have a conservative position, or indeed a progressive position, one has to accept the value and credibility of the other, and to accept a trajectory and a timetable which will eventually legislate this. It also demands blind trust rather than earning lost trust.

We can continue to operate under the auspices of the Church of England, deferring to bishops in legalities, and seeking spiritual oversight where we can get it, but we do not need to accept this redefinition of church. We can hold to our doctrinal heritage, but we must also hold to meaningful inter-church partnership and genuine missional reach.

When faced with a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England and the teaching of the Bible, we must do more than simply resist the change for the sake of the orthodox. We need to promote a movement for reform – a long-term, costly, sacrificial campaign to renew and revitalise local churches in Biblical teaching.