Have the Prayers of Love and Faith stalled? Not at all

This month’s General Synod will receive an update from the Living in Love and Faith Programme Board, but there will be no formal motion or debate this time.

This could wrongly be interpreted as ‘no progress’ for the LLF cause, and CEEC will be calling on orthodox members of General Synod to exercise a number of cautions.

1. It isn't just addressing standalone services

The first caution is towards the narrative ‘we are just talking about a few prayers’. Because there will be no concrete proposals for the removal of restrictions around clergy same-sex marriage, and possibly not even a timetable for its pursuit, some might be persuaded to see the February General Synod as only addressing the issue of standalone services. However, until and unless the House of Bishops reverses the commitment it made at its October 2023 meeting (NB there are some bishops who continue to stand against the direction of travel), and until and unless the terms of reference for the Leicester Working Group responsible for the replacement of ‘Issues in Human Sexuality (1991)’, are changed, this would be to grossly misread the current situation.

Whatever is and is not explored at this Synod, the argument will continue to be made that Synod has already indicated its support for the pursuit of clergy same-sex marriages and this commitment must be delivered on. Until that is visibly and actively taken ‘off the table’, it remains on the table.

2. It remains focussed on enabling clergy to enter into same-sex marriages

Second, while the Working Group responsible for drafting a replacement to ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ is (as we understand it) waiting on work from the Episcopal Reference Group (a ‘subset’ of the Faith and Order Commission) before it can prepare a draft, its terms of reference remain explicitly focused around the removal of restrictions on clergy entering same-sex marriages. Though it is virtually impossible for an onlooker to reconcile the possibility of clergy same-sex marriages with a ‘no change’ in doctrine, the House of Bishops has shown an ability to embrace theological arguments that many find unconvincing, and anyway the bishops are not bound by the thinking of the Episcopal Reference Group.

3. It needs more adequate provision for orthodox members

Third, orthodox members of General Synod (of whatever churchmanship) are invited to be cautious about the proposed provision of delegated episcopal oversight. While some might think this sounds like an acceptable compromise, until and unless a proposal is offered with a legal underpinning, a permanent provision of orthodox diocesan bishops, and an ecclesial space with a single doctrine of marriage consistent with the inherited teaching of the Church, any provision will be inadequate.

4. Unity goes hand-in-hand with the truth

Fourth, CEEC urges caution around a theology of ‘unity trumps all’. This is not to say that unity is not important – the fact that Jesus prayed explicitly for it in John 17 is proof enough for evangelicals to know that it is important and is to be pursued. However, the question still remains as to ‘unity in or around what’. The unity that Jesus prayed for was not institutional. The unity that Jesus prayed for was not around the status quo. And unity in Scripture always goes hand-in-hand with truth. CEEC is absolutely committed to unity across cultures, continents and centuries with all those who hold to the apostolic faith as we have received it.

It is possible that the somewhat negative picture painted above proves to be unduly pessimistic, though at the time of writing it is unlikely. But in the face of such a challenging situation, what does positive and helpful contending look like?

In short, CEEC continues to encourage orthodox clergy and PCCs to engage with the Alliance’s de facto parallel province. Whilst many are sceptical as to whether the substantive provision we seek will ever be granted, a number of bishops and senior evangelical leaders have indicated that were 1,000 churches to use the Ephesian Fund and 1,000 clergy to request CEEC’s alternative spiritual oversight, there could be a genuinely real and tectonic pressure on the House of Bishops to provide a more robust settlement.

So, the clarion call of the moment is for PCCs to decide to use the Ephesian Fund to pay (or divert) their parish share, or to decide when they will choose to do so at some identifiable future point. Similarly, CEEC is calling on orthodox clergy in dioceses whose bishops support the removal of restrictions on clergy same-sex marriage and/or the introduction of PLF to request alternative spiritual oversight from CEEC. For clergy in dioceses with a publicly orthodox diocesan bishop, CEEC will not provide oversight, but invites clergy to write in support of the scheme should their diocesan change or they move diocese.

It has been suggested that ‘if we do nothing, we will get nothing’. Whilst this might sound an aggressively political position to adopt, it is difficult to see that there are many other options on the table. For (literally) decades, evangelicals have sought to engage in the Church of England’s discussions around sexual ethics: we have participated in synods, in Shared Conversations, in Facilitated Conversations, and in the Leicester Working Groups. And despite the youthfulness, the mission liveliness and the growth that we see in our churches, it continually feels as though the CofE has either not heard or is not listening. CEEC continues to have hope that, with sufficient scale of action, there might yet be the possibility of a robust and structural provision which enables orthodoxy to flourish in the years to come. For that we pray and contend.