It is some time now since the meeting of General Synod in mid-November. At that gathering the Synod decided to endorse the issuing of the Prayers of Love and Faith, and, through an amendment to the main motion moved by the Bishop of Oxford, to allow the Archbishops to commend for experimental use ‘stand-alone services’ for same-sex couples, which passed very narrowly. The processes of synodical government mean that these arrangements will only obtain for a relatively short period before they have to come back to General Synod and need to obtain a two-thirds majority in all houses to be approved for continuing use. This is almost guaranteed to be impossible to achieve.

The debate was mostly respectful, often passionate on both sides, and weathered a brief demonstration from the public gallery by members of a group of “ex-gay” conservatives. It must be said that there were accusations of betrayal and apostasy applied to the progressive side, and in particular the House of Bishops, who are now quite clearly determined to move the church forward on this matter. Some of them have had to put up with some very unpleasant personal attacks by members of their own dioceses and others. One of the most egregious claims was that made by the Bishop of Lancaster, Jill Duff, who said that after the vote “orthodox” evangelicals would be going round ‘with a target on their backs’. I will return to this shortly.

Since then, the CEEC (Church of England Evangelical Council) has announced that it is making plans for a parallel existence. It says that for the sake of fidelity to biblical truth it will need “orthodox” bishops, and that it will not be possible for its members to be in communion with any diocesan bishop who approves the issuing of these prayers. Progressive bishops would not be allowed to lead worship, preach, confirm, ordain, preside at the Holy Communion, bless or effectively do anything at all in an “orthodox” parish. It is hiving its money off into a separate fund and withdrawing from participating in diocesan financial arrangements. Perhaps not surprisingly, it still wants the advantages of its clergy receiving the stipend, the housing, the pension and other emoluments, and the cover for its parishes of safeguarding arrangements and responsibilities (though all these are tainted as much as anything else, I would have thought).

Today it has announced a panel, made up of three former bishops and some clergy and lay leaders from both the conservative and charismatic sides of evangelicalism, who will be charged with finding and commissioning “overseers” who will offer ‘spiritual counsel, prayerful support, encouragement, advice and friendship to clergy, PCCs and congregations.’ It is not clear precisely what this means. If all it is is what appears in this quoation from their announcement, then they would appear to be a kind of Area Dean/mentor. But would they have other more significant ritual or sacramental functions? Would confirmations be presided over by them, Methodist-style? Or eucharists? I think we should be told.

Besides this outbreak of ‘ecclesial prepping’ by CEEC, there is clearly a significant level of anxiety among conversatives about the risks that allowing same-sex blessings presents to clergy who conscientiously could not offer them. I think this is entirely misplaced. These will not be statutory services of the Church of England to which parishioners have a right of access. They are being introduced with the absolute guarantee that anyone who does not wish to offer them is entirely free not to do so. But the anxiety goes deeper. Some clergy, we are told, fear complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure being made against them. Further, some fear that irate gays and lesbians might launch a civil proceeding against a clergyperson who declines a request to proovide such a service. Let me answer these cases.

First of all, anyone can make a complaint against a clergyperson under the CDM. Nothing anyone could do could stop that happening. It would be made to the bishop; but the bishop, after considering the complaint has the power to decide if there is a prima facie case to answer. Everything we have heard throughout the Living in Love and Faith process has repeatedly underlined the commitment to non-compulsion. No bishop would countenance a complaint made under the CDM for failing to do something that is covered by a conscience clause. It would be summarily dismissed.

Secondly, a civil action would go nowhere at all. Unless a litigant could show that some statutory right was being withheld, there is absolutely no case to answer. Experimental and optional services are not covered by any alleged right under canon or civil law – no parishioner has rights that could be claimed to have been breached by a conscientious refusal to offer the service requested.

These anxieties are misplaced and unfounded. Inflammatory language likely that used by the Bishop of Lancaster is both nonsensical and irresponsible. But there is more. Why do these anxieties surface in this way? It is almost as if the “orthodox” fear the existence of homosexual hit squads; gay or lesbian couples who will be roaming around looking to cause trouble for an unwary conservative clergyperson. What other reason can there be for this anxiety? I don’t know of any gay or lesbian couple who are looking to have their relationship blessed who would want to cause trouble in this way. I have never heard of such people. I don’t know anyone in my extensive acquaintance in the Church of England who has ever heard of such a couple.

Many gay and lesbian people have given up on the Church of England in the last thirty years because of its persistently negative attitude towards us, our relationships and our participation in the life and ministry of the church. Many of us have been conscious of being targeted, both in the church and out of it. Not a few bear the scars of violence. The idea that we would go looking for a blessing from someone whose theology said that we were sinners in danger of hell (as we were told at Synod) is, frankly, laughable. We have all had enough distress and hurt doled out by the Church of England to last us a lifetime. Lesbian and gay people gravitate towards people they know will treat them with respect and sympathy. Here is an example of someone who, I am sure, will be asked to do a lot more services of blessing for same-sex couples in the coming years.

Could it be that what these anxieties, unfounded as they are, and yet so persistent, actually represent a very real and uncomfortable example of homophobia. The fear of gay and lesbian people. In churches which only welcome gay and lesbian people if they repent of their “lifestyle”, how many gay and lesbian people will you find there? If they are there, their relationships are not acceptable, so they may well have to keep quiet about them. These are the churches which might see a role for “prayer to help people change”, though there is no evidence people do and plenty to say it is harmful. I and too many other gay and lesbian people I know have experienced the damaging impact of such ministry. Happy, healthy lesbians and gays would go where they are welcome, not where they are oppressed. So, for “orthodox” christians, who are taught that ‘unrepentant’ LGBT+ people are bad and wrong and dangerous, the chance for them to truly know us without pre-judging us, is vanishingly small.

When I came out, many years ago now, I needed to out myself to some very anti-gay relatives. I put it off, thinking that I should do it face to face. But the opportunity never came and I realised that I had to phone and let them know what was happening before they heard it from elsewhere. When I had delivered the tricky news, the very first thing I was told was the anti-gay theological position of the person I was speaking to. Any concern for me? Any awareness of what it cost me to say what I had said? Nothing. And it was followed with a letter offering me conversion therapy. So who was really under threat?

I would much rather see some kind of settlement that retains our common recognition of our oneness in Christ, through our baptism. We are all sinners, standing in need of God’s grace, and who, by his mercy have been welcomed home and incorporated by that sacrament into his Body. For me, despite the pain, that is enough.