The Church of England’s General Synod met last week for the first time since the Archbishop of Canterbury resigned and the Bishop of Liverpool retired in response to concerns over safeguarding and allegations of abuse within the Church. Recent meetings of the General Synod have been dominated by debate over Living in Love and Faith, a churchwide process aimed at charting a way forward on issues related to LGBT-inclusion in the Church of England. Below Fr. Charlie Bell, an Anglican priest and member of the Synod, discusses the ways in which the years of intense debate surrounding Living in Love and Faith have colored (and to an extent poisoned) other conversations within the Synod and the wider Church, including efforts at improving safeguarding. He also shares how legitimate concerns around safeguarding have been weaponized against advocates for greater inclusion in the Church of England. —-The Wheel Editors
The General Synod of the Church of England met in London a few weeks ago, and as ever, it was anything but plain sailing. In the weeks leading up to the Synod, the church had been mired in increasingly murky scandals ostensibly relating to safeguarding but often also acting as clandestine proxies for matters of sexuality and gender that are never far from the surface of Anglican disagreements. Distasteful as it is, it seems that even safeguarding vulnerable adults and young people has become an acceptable tool in these increasingly desperate fights – prior to General Synod, reasonable concerns about the responses by some in the hierarchy to matters of both clergy discipline and safeguarding had been very unhelpfully – but often rather subtly – weaponized so that whilst senior figures were facing fire on poor safeguarding practice, this was often tinged with other complaints, most of which related to perceived ‘liberalism’ on same-sex relationships.
Not only is this dishonest, but it is deeply problematic from a Christian perspective too – “let your yes be yes, and your no be no” (Matthew 5:37) coming to mind on more than one occasion. It does a grotesque disservice to victims and survivors of abuse to use their situation and their anger to “bring down” senior figures for entirely different reasons, and yet it seems that where same-sex relationships are concerned, no political machination is off the table. Of course, in the process, genuine concerns about safeguarding get left by the wayside – but it seems that, for some, this is acceptable collateral. For a church that is called to speak the truth in love, it felt to me – at least – that there was precious little of either in the run up to or the behavior within the Synod itself.
The five days were a deeply unpleasant affair – these gatherings have increasingly had the feel of a party-political fracas, with various political groupings whipping their members, and where truth becomes the casualty of political expediency. This February’s version was no exception – and this time the sheer willingness of people to say one thing and mean another was unparalleled. Hyperbole, too, was on the rise, with changes to standing orders being compared to the behavior in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or Apartheid South Africa – comparisons which would be ludicrous if they weren’t so offensive. The General Synod has gotten itself into a place where ‘bash the bishops’ has become an Olympic sport, and this, too, is a proxy for disagreement over the ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’, a modest proposal to allow clergy to offer prayers for individuals in same-sex relationships. It is well known that the House of Bishops (containing all the diocesan bishops, and indeed the wider College too, which includes all serving bishops) is in modest favor of greater inclusive practice within the church, and it is clear that there is an increasingly loud and vicious campaign being waged against those perceived to be “liberals.”
In this Synod, that took a number of forms. It was present in the safeguarding debate itself – it was notable, indeed, that most of those calling for the head of the Archbishop of York over safeguarding failures all voted against the clear call of victims and survivors, independent experts, the lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of London, and the Archbishop of York, for fully independent safeguarding. Yet it was also present throughout other debates. Moves to reduce the influence of powerful conservative factions within the church were all opposed on the grounds of needing to “pay attention to power,” suggesting that the bishops were all powerful and the wealthy, authoritarian conservative groupings were somehow “powerless” – an astonishing attempt at deception.
For example, changes were suggested to the Crown Nominations Commission, the body which appoints bishops. These proposed alterations to the episcopal appointment process would reduce the possibility of big conservative churches stacking the votes, or absolutist conservative members exercising a veto in appointments. The current system has effectively prevented any liberal-leaning candidates, and particularly women, from being appointed. Yet when this system was challenged, out came the cries of “pay attention to power.” The dishonesty was palpable, and yet time and again out came the proponents of conservative power complaining about the alleged power of everyone else, whilst failing to note the log in their own eye.
Of course, what all this comes down to, in the end, is a determination by those who have always held the power to hold onto it at all costs. The current battlefield is same-sex relationships – previously, it has been women’s ministry. I say previously, but that too reared its head during this Synod session, reducing the Bishop of London to tears, making abundantly clear that misogyny is not dead in the Church of England.
We can – and we must – do better than this, but it is hard to see how that might happen. The absolutist conservatives have done everything they can to block moves towards inclusion and have essentially said ‘my way or the highway’, and thrown teddies out the pram when they don’t get their way. If this was done in the open and with a degree of honesty, it would perhaps be a little more palatable. Sadly, honestly is not the current watchword of our ecclesial politics, and a dishonest church is one that can only tend to disaster.