“Had I been called I would have said..” Synod-ready speech on LLF

by Rebecca Hunt:

In November I raised concerns about the pushing forward of the agenda that the LLF project has become without full advice on the lawfulness of the proposals. I continue to be alarmed at what looks like a failure by the Bishops to have due regard to the essential obligations of good and proper governance in this matter. As a legislative body, we MAY NOT ignore this.

Our doctrine 

The Bishops have been clear in the Pastoral Guidance document of Dec23 that the doctrine of marriage and the place of sexual intimacy remains unchanged, where it is stated that:

The Church of England teaches that Holy Matrimony is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, blessed by God in creation and pointing to the love between Christ and the Church; a way of life which Christ makes holy. It is within marriage that sexual intimacy finds its proper place (p. 1).

The Bishops have also said that they are “aware that [they] must act in accordance with Canon law and having taken relevant theological and legal advice consider that [they have] done so”.

But the evidence CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES that they have NOT done so.

PLF

Firstly, we know from GS2328 that the Bishops were given legal advice that PLF DID NOT comply with the February Synod motion which required them NOT TO BE indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the C of E. They concluded, apparently without theological advice addressing the issue directly, that the departure from doctrine being indicated was not in “an essential matter”. This is how they concluded that the PLF were legal. I say again that this is highly questionable and certainly does NOT provide adequate grounds for clergy to conclude safely that the prayers would be lawful to use in the context in which most intend to use them.

Stand alone services 

Secondly, written legal advice was apparently available in the early autumn in relation to the legal routes to using the PLF in stand-alone services and the legal difficulties of this. We have only been made aware of this now, and even the Bishops (other than the lead Bishop) did NOT apparently have it shared with them until Dec. The key synod vote on the amendment to consider such services on an experimental basis taken in Nov was therefore taken without knowing what we now know, which is that the Bishops have been advised that there is NO FORMAL ROUTE TO THIS, WHICH IS LIKELY TO BE LAWFUL.

Same-sex marriage for Clergy

We have now been told the House of Bishops voted in October for the pastoralguidance to address clergy to be permitted to enter same-sex marriages. This vote was apparently taken at the meeting with “no specific advice on the particular question” from theological or legal advisors. Therefore, the assumption is that legal advice on this matter remained as it was in GS 2055 back in 2017, which read:

“It is prima facie a breach of canon C26, read in the light of canon B30, for a clerk in Holy Orders to enter a marriage with a person of the same sex”. The reason being that by doing so he or she is fashioning his life in a way that is “inconsistent with the doctrine of Christ as expounded by Canon B30”.

SSM and Holy Matrimony?

It was suggested by the legal office in GS 2055 that the only way to get around this without amending canon law would be “to issue a teaching document which explains that civil marriage is no longer the same institution as holy matrimony”. The Bishops have NOT done this and indeed FAOC has advised us that they are distinct, but overlapping institutions. It is therefore difficult to see how this argument can be sustained as a justification for the introduction of SSM for clergy.

Despite this we are now being asked to commit to SSM for clergy as part of this motion.

Conclusion

This process does not need so much a reset as a RESTART.

The legal and theological work must be done so that synod can make fully informed decisions on the extent to which our doctrine can or cannot accommodate all these proposals.

The only type of RECONCILIATION that is now possible is a RADICAL one enabling those who wish to act contrary to our current law and doctrine to be given a separate structure within the C of E to do so. This will enable us to remain part of the worldwide Anglican communion, and to get on with our mission of bringing the hope of Jesus Christ to the world.

Mrs Rebecca Hunt, a lawyer, clergy wife and member of General Synod, is a trustee of Anglican Mainstream