THE General Synod voted on the Tuesday to replace the 1991 document Issues in Human Sexuality with the 2015 Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (GPCC) during the discernment process for ordination.
A private member’s motion from the Revd Mae Christie (Southwark) was introduced by Paul Waddell (Southwark) on her behalf. Two years ago, the Synod, he said, had voted to replace Issues with new pastoral guidance from the House of Bishops — and yet it still remained in place.
Given that the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process was still continuing, it made sense to fix this “little bit” now. In a vocations crisis, he said, the continued use of Issues made the Church look “a bit silly and sometimes cruel”. What the motion proposed a “surgical removal” of the document, without getting bogged down in other debates.
While the pastoral guidance was being waited for, Issues could be replaced with the GPCC, he suggested. This was shaped by the Ordinal, grounded in canon law, and referred to a separate Bishops’ statement on a traditional view of marriage.
It was not only the language of Issues that was outdated — including repeated use of “homophile” — but also its teaching. It stated that bisexuals would “inevitably” be unfaithful, for example. Ordinands were being asked to agree to statements that the Church, through its Synod, no longer agreed with or taught. “We’re asking conservatives to sign up to things they do not believe, let alone liberals,” he said.
This was an opportunity to make a “small but significant” change — “bin off Issues in Human Sexuality” and end this harm, he concluded.
Matthew Edwards (Lichfield) said that the impact of Issues had “fallen heavily” on LGBTQ+ people. It had not gone through a full synodical approval process, nor had it been conceived as a lasting document, but, rather, as a staging post, he said. Its language “undermines” pastoral care, and should be removed now. “When someone cannot speak truthfully about who they are, . . . that’s not discernment, that’s not spiritual formation, that’s not the Church being at its best.”
The Revd Lucy Davis, Dean of Women’s Ministry in St Albans diocese, reported that women of all traditions in the diocese who were exploring vocations were “bemused” when asked to take home and read Issues. “Interestingly, they always remember to return it,” she joked. “Yellowing as it is, Issues is not one of the historic formularies of the Church of England; nor has it aged well.” She knew of vocations that had fallen away because of Issues, before the person even got to a meeting with the Diocesan Director of Ordinands. “Issues needs to go, and it needs to go now.”
Canon Vaughan Roberts (Oxford) thanked Mr Waddell for his introduction, saying that he had come to the debate with some trepidation, but was grateful for the tone in which it was being conducted. “I don’t like Issues,” he said. As someone who “experienced exclusively same-sex attraction”, he “didn’t feel recognised” by the document, he said. It could not, however, be removed without something to replace it; therefore, he was grateful for a forthcoming amendment to replace it with the GPCC on an interim basis, before the full pastoral guidance was introduced.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesCanon Vaughan Roberts (Oxford)
Dr Helen King (Oxford) had been a Synod member in 1991. She concurred that it was a statement from the House of Bishops never intended to be used in the discernment process. Its “empire” had even spread beyond the clergy to lay people now, she said. She knew of dioceses where Issues was used to restrict lay ministry, by, for example, banning married gay people from leading Bible studies. She also supported the forthcoming amendment. These were about calling, care, integrity, and fidelity, while calling the clergy to the “highest standards of personal conduct”. She urged the Synod to unite as one Church and “end the unintended reign of Issues”.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) moved an amendment that Issues be replaced, on an interim basis, with the GPCC, and asking for work to be completed on pastoral guidance, a code of practice, and a House of Bishops statement, as agreed last year (News, 12 July 2024). The GPCC was not law, she said, but pointed to the relevant canons, and, though intended for clergy rather than those in the discernment process, it seemed “common sense” that anyone seeking to become a priest should be able to accede to them. “We might be on the cusp of a rare moment of consensus on an LLF debate,” Ms Bridgman said.
Mr Waddell was “delighted” to accept the amendment.
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) said that the “rare” agreement in the debate on an LLF-related issue was moving. He called for the Synod to “seize the moment” and move to a vote.
The Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Mark Tanner, who co-wrote the amendment with Ms Bridgman, thanked Ms Christie for her work and agreed that Issues needed to go. It was “utterly logical and consistent” for bishops to require ordinands and discernment candidates to live in line with GPCC, he said, which were up to date and consistent with the Church’s teaching and practice.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), said that the ongoing work on the new pastoral guidance and code of practice would not undermine the proposed endorsement of the GPCC, though they would be structured differently. The debate showed that the Church was learning how to “play nicely” on contentious issues, he suggested.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) said that, as a college principal, he worked with students who were “on the way” to meeting the GPCC guidelines, but might not be there yet. “There will be times when the ordinands step outside the guidelines, and that’s not automatically a case of ‘Game over, off you go.’” Trinity College, Bristol, was not a complete “free-for-all”, but had grace for students to grow towards meeting the GPCC standards.
The amendment was carried.
The Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury) praised the tenor of the debate: bridges were being built between different factions. He also wanted Issues gone, but could not have voted for this without the amendment. “We need a deep, pastorally sensitive, theologically rich replacement.”
Debbie Buggs (London) was the only speaker against the motion. The Synod had been promised that proposals on pastoral guidance, the development of stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples, and provision for opponents of these would all be presented together. She understood that a package had been developed by the LLF working groups, and that it included a measure of “transferred episcopal authority”.
Making a change on one aspect of this triumvirate without bringing forward proposals on the others was not helpful, she suggested. While the wording of Issues was unhelpful, she granted, the motion amounted to a “sticking plaster” rather than a “surgical removal”.
Mr Waddell said that Canon Roberts’s speech would stay with him, and that this debate should set a new tone for LLF debates next year.
The motion as amended was carried on a show of hands, almost unanimously. It read:
That this Synod request that the House of Bishops remove any requirements relating to Issues in Human Sexuality from the Vocations (Shared Discernment) Process, and replace it with an interim requirement of living consistently with the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (GPCC) during the period of discernment and training, and complete work on the package of the Pastoral Guidelines, Code of Practice, and Bishops’ Statement, as agreed at General Synod in July 2024.
Read more reports from the General Synod digest here
