by Andrew Goddard, Psephizo
This article analyses the July 2026 General Synod’s debate on Helen King’s Private Members’ Motion concerning same-sex relationships and Christian discipleship explored in a previous article.
It traces the two competing amendments before explaining why the eventual amended motion failed in the House of Bishops.
It notes the significant shift in voting among the bishops since they introduced PLF in January 2023 and points to ten possible reasons contributing to this. It then offers three substantive reasons why the motion was opposed by so many:
- it failed to address conservative’s concerns by replacing “no fundamental objection” with a claim as to the “legitimate range” of views,
- it seems not to understand the reasons why, based on Scripture and Tradition, most conservatives cannot accept the legitimacy of the view King advocates,
- it failed to name conservative views and added to the original motion’s ambiguity by not clarifying what range of views was being deemed legitimate.
It shows that the central unresolved issue is not simply disagreement over sexuality and discipleship, but disagreement over whether differing theological positions on this can be recognised as legitimate within the Church of England.
The piece concludes that the next Synod must learn from all this: further unresolvable conflict and pain is unavoidable unless we address with greater honesty and theological rigour (1) questions of discipleship and the recognisability of the legitimacy of different viewpoints, (2) how to recognise and respond to the differences over how serious our disagreements on discipleship are to be viewed, and (3) possible ecclesial reconfiguration to provide spaces for the pluralist reality now present within the Church of England when many cannot accept that pluralism as legitimate.