Prof Helen King and the Revd Canon Dr Judith Maltby , both Academic Historians involved with the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process, have written an excellent blog on the ViaMedia web site. Helen King is Professor Emerita of Classical Studies at The Open University and had served on General Synod for seven years. Judith Maltby is Chaplain and Fellow of Corpus Christi College and Reader in Church History in the University of Oxford as well as a member of General Synod.
Both have been on the ‘History’ sub-group from the start of the LLF process. At first, they say, it felt like a small seminar group. The ‘History’ people wrote papers for each other and discussed them, interested in what history can add to the process, and in previous cases where the Church of England has changed its teaching and practice.
Bishops sabotage the process
They now wonder where the LLF project is now going after publication of the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships. The Statement insisted that ‘Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings’ and belittled situations in which children aren’t brought up by a married, straight couple. The Statement which mentioned the LLF project and its aim to ‘help the Church to learn how questions about human identity, relationships, marriage and sexuality fit within the bigger picture of what it means to embody a Christian vision of living holy lives in love and faith in our culture’ but showed no engagement with or awareness of the contents of the resources LLF is producing.
Helen and Judith comment that it’s hard to know how the bishops work. In other words, who wrote a Statement that is so ignorant of the work being done by LLF that was commissioned by and will be solely owned by the bishops? The House of Bishops approved the Statement without all the bishops having read it. It was discussed at a recent meeting of the College of bishops but very little information about what happened is in the public domain. A vote apparently took place on whether or not to withdraw the Pastoral Statement but this vote was lost. The archbishops then issued a very short statement which failed to apologise for the cold, un-pastoral prose of the original Statement that was inappropriate when LLF is in its final stages.
How does all this feel to Helen and Judith? They are angry about the content of the Pastoral Statement. It presents the Church’s past as static, rather than dynamic, and uses phrases like ‘It has always been the position of the Church of England’. As historians they are well aware of many significant changes of position, from accepting, reluctantly, clerical heterosexual marriage to accepting contraception, to allowing the marriage in church of couples where one is divorced with a former partner still living. The Statement uses only the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) to define what marriage is rather than the emphasis on companionship of the Common Worship rite.
History
The LLF process itself has a history. During 2014-2016, the Church of England engaged in a process called the Shared Conversations. They were supposed to express and acknowledge the diversity of views within the Church on human sexuality. In February 2017, the House of Bishops presented a report to General Synod (GS2055) which stated that the bishops had ‘listened to’ the Shared Conversations process, offered ‘a fresh tone and culture’, but evidenced absolutely no engagement or learning from the Shared Conversations. The subsequent meeting of General Synod failed to ‘take note’ of (rejected) the report. In response to that rejection a proposal for a ‘substantial new Teaching Document on marriage and relationships’ was implemented, following a statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he announced the need for a ‘radical new Christian inclusion’. This ‘teaching’ document soon evolved into a ‘learning’ document, and then a set of ‘learning resources’, re-branded as Living in Love and Faith (LLF). Many people have stuck with it (though some resigned) in the hope that some learning by the bishops had actually occurred about the failure to engage with the learning from the Shared Conversations resulting in the rejection of GS2055 by General Synod.
Helen and Judith conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that any learning from experience has happened. The archbishops’ minimalist apology and the failure of the College of Bishops to withdraw the Pastoral Statement have severely undermined their confidence in the collective ability of the bishops to learn from LLF. The bishops have to approve the resources formally, and then are charged with taking the LLF process forwards after they are published in the summer. Helen and Judith end with these comments:
They are not confident that the bishops understand the LLF process.
They suspect the whole LLF enterprise been yet another delaying tactic, kicking any actual movement towards LGBT+ equality in the Church further into the long grass.
They are no longer convinced that the House and College of Bishops are capable of breaking the repeated, destructive pattern of behaviour they saw over the production of GS2055.
They regretfully conclude that the bishops have shown a collective inability to learn from the process.
What will happen next?
What Judith and Helen don’t say is what action they think they could take in advance of the publication of the LLF material to avert another catastrophe. It is too late now to change anything. The work has been done and is being prepared for publication.
Neither do they say what impact they think this utterly failed process will have on LGBTI people and the hundreds of thousands who already support radical inclusion in the Church of England. For me and many of the friends and colleagues I have worked with over the years, only one outcome is acceptable given the commitment to radical inclusion - full recognition of LGBTI relationships, marriages and civil partnerships, equal marriage in church, and full equality for LGBTI clergy and laity.
This is what radical inclusion means. It means the radical inclusion of diverse opinions and teachings in the church and the radical, practical implications of this for LGBTI people.
I have frequently discussed with friends the implications for us if the outcome of the LLF project is as Helen and Judith predict. There will be a huge level of anger and despair. It will be the third time that the agenda has been kicked into the long grass. As a married gay priest I am indifferent to the outcome. I’ve already burnt my boats and I’m retired. But I am concerned for the thousands of lay LGBTI people, their families and friends, who fail to understand why they can’t marry in church. I am puzzled by my ordained LGBTI partnered friends, many recently ordained, who seem willing to tolerate the requirement of the bishops that their relationships are devoid of sexual activity. More elusively, I am fearful for the future of Christianity that is so repressive, hostile to the pleasures of sex, and lacking in prophetic vision and courage.