Episcopally led, synodically governed.

News has emerged on Thursday of a meeting held between the bishops of Coventry, Newcastle and Exeter and a group of people opposed to the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith guidance. News article can be accessed here.

The background  is that in July 2017 the Church of England’s General Synod passed a motion calling for the House of Bishops to consider introducing new liturgy to affirm trans people in their faith after transition. The House of Bishops eventually decided that they would issue new guidance on using the existing Affirmation of Baptismal Faith liturgy. This new guidance was issued in December 2018 and can be accessed here:
With a press release that is available here:

Following the release of the guidance, an open letter was organised with public signatures. The letter is available to read here:

Having read the open letter, I was unhappy with the inaccuracies and instances of inflammatory language that is contained, so I wrote a detailed response to the letter. This detailed response, Why the Bishops are Right, can be found here:

Now, some of those who organised the letter have had a meeting with three members of the House of Bishops and have issued a statement about the content of the meeting.
This new statement repeats some of the inaccuracies and misinformation from the open letter, so I decided that this statement needs detailed analysis.  There is a great deal of what the writers said and much less of what the bishops said, which is what we are all really interested in.  On careful reading there are only a handful of points that merit addressing.

The first point is in the second paragraph which says that the bishops had agreed that the press release was ‘unhelpful’ and that it would be removed from the Church of England website. No reason was given for this. I fail to see how the press release is unhelpful, it provides a summary of the guidance document, shows the history of how General Synod asked the House of Bishops to produce this guidance and affirms trans people, saying: “The Church of England welcomes and encourages the unconditional affirmation of trans people, equally with all people, within the body of Christ, and rejoices in the diversity of that body into which all Christians have been baptized by one Spirit,”. The only ‘problem’ I can see with this is at the end where the Bishop of Blackburn commends the guidance. He subsequently changed his mind and did not support it.

The fourth paragraph was interesting, with the triple use of the word ‘concern’ –
• The delegation expressed concern that…some responses to the open letter were emotive in tone…
• We were further concerned that…. parish churches had been collated…
• We were glad that the bishops shared our concern for respectful public dialogue.
It could give the impression that the bishops were in agreement with them throughout, but the only thing the bishops explicitly agreed with was ‘respectful public dialogue’. I think we would all agree with that.

The first sentence  of the fourth paragraph expresses concern about some responses being ‘emotive in tone’ and not engaging with the points. Those of us who write about LGBT Christian matters are used to emotive, and even hostile, responses that have little or no engagement with the text. Being told that we are going to burn in hell or that we are an abomination or that God hates us etc is very common trolling. Perhaps the writers might like to look at some of the vicious comments that Vicky Beeching or Jayne Ozanne routinely have to put up with. It may be that this is the first time they have experienced it; in which case I hope they will condemn it whenever they come across it.

The letter organisers chose what information to ask people to disclose when they signed the letter. The organisers chose how much of that information to put in the public domain on the open letter website. Having chosen to list parishes and dioceses alongside the names, it was perhaps naïve of the organisers not to expect people to collate that information. Whether that collation was someone with a pen and paper scrolling through the screens to see who had signed in their diocese or someone doing a statistical analysis of this publicly available information or something in between, collation and analysis is an inevitable result of putting large amounts of data into the public domain.

One element of the work I do brings me into contact with LGBT people who have had bad experiences of church. Some have given up on the church completely, others just want to find a ‘safe’ church where they can worship and use their God-given gifts. Those of us who are LGBT know that churches are not automatically safe and we always have to think carefully and ask around before visiting an unknown church. Perhaps the writers of this new statement have never had the experience of going into a church and being preached against, being judged or criticised when all they want to do it join in the worship on a Sunday morning. Until you have been abused in church, it is easy to stay in a bubble that believes churches are always ‘good’ places to attend and be part of.

In the fifth paragraph, the writers are again expressing their concern. They are speculating that ‘ambiguous wording’ may be the result of inadequate theological reflection. I have found that ambiguous wording is so common in the Church of England, that it is almost a strategy. It allows for maximum flexibility without breaking the rules.

The next paragraph says that ‘[We appreciated] … the bishops’ further assurances at this meeting that the provisions of the guidance, even in adapted form, were totally inappropriate for those under the age of eighteen.’ No justification is given for this statement and it needs an explanation. It may be as straightforward as complying with UK policy, which is to delay gender surgery until a person is 18. There may be other reasons and it would have been helpful to avoid misunderstandings and ambiguity if the reason was given. After all, not everyone who transitions has gender surgery.

The writers argue in paragraph nine that they want the guidance withdrawn. As the request for the guidance was produced by General Synod in response to a diocesan motion, if the writers want it to be withdrawn then the most appropriate way would be for them to ask General Synod to change their mind.   I must say that having reread this article and the original open letter, I am led to wonder if the complaint is more about opposition to gender transition itself than to the actual guidance from the House of Bishops.

The writers say that they have been invited to join in the LLF project. One of the strengths of the LLF process is that it is balanced and independent of those campaigning for any particular outcome. It has academics with a range of beliefs and academic expertise on each working party. This allows for listening to other points of view, for compromising opinions and finding common ground while being guided by the Holy Spirit.

In order to maintain balance on the LLF it would be necessary to invite a proportionate number of people from strongly affirming groups. LLF is not something that should be open to campaigning groups, it should be able to do the deep and rigorous academic and pastoral work without having to resist ideological pressures to come up with particular outcomes. The LLF presentation at the last General synod said that we were moving on from ‘good disagreement’ (to ‘appreciative disagreement’) and this is best served by keeping those on the LLF to be the moderate and independent academic voices following the Holy Spirit.

The final paragraph…When what you are writing is likely to be read by people who have been hurt by the church or who have had the doctrine of repentance used against them abusively, this sort of paragraph in the article is going to alienate some readers. When you want to connect with someone you have to start where they are, not where you are.  Any statement like this which does not start by explicitly stating God’s love and affirmation, will be seen through the lens of previous hurts. I would urge greater pastoral sensitivity.

I wonder if the writers include statements like this as part of everything they write? We are all sinners, after all, so why not?

Ann Reddecliffe

Ex post facto truth, Archbishop?

The Christian faith has many mysteries. Now, along with the mysteries of the Incarnation, the nature of Hell etc, there is a new mystery – where does Justin Welby get his legal advice?

The Anglican consultative council meeting #ACC17 is currently taking place in Hong Kong. On the opening day there was a press conference and ++Justin was asked whether the ACC would be debating the invitations to the 2020 Lambeth conference.

[Video of press conference can be viewed here.    Start viewing at 38.50]

The short answer was ‘no’, but the explanation was surprising, for several reasons. The reason ++Justin gave for this was that:
‘The ACC is the only one of the four instruments [of communion] that is under a legal jurisdiction. It is an English company with charitable aims. And as such is governed by its trustees under British law. The trustees clearly specify what it can and can’t do … and doctrine is not one of the things that it does. ‘

Not exactly right…

The Anglican Communion has four instruments of communion. There are the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. Information about each of these can be found here.

The ACC is a Registered Charity, No. 1137273 and a Company, No. 7311767. So is the Lambeth Conference – Registered Charity No. 1121679, Company No. 05985741. Both of these are subject to UK law.

A charity has to have public benefit in order to gain charitable status. The statement of public benefit is on the website of the charity commission. According to the public benefit statement of the ACC:

The Trustees believe that the Christian faith is of benefit to individuals and to society since it works towards a holistic vision of a transformed and peace-filled community and the flourishing of humankind and all creation.
The stated objective of the ACC is ‘to advance the Christian religion and in particular to promote the unity and purposes of the Churches of the Anglican Communion in mission and evangelism, ecumenical relations, communication, administration and finance’.

I agree that doctrine is not explicitly mentioned in these objectives. However things like ‘promoting unity’ and ‘finance’ are explicitly stated so they can be discussed.

In 2017 the Lambeth Conference received £160,324 from the ACC. It is expected that there will be more money paid to the Lambeth Conference by the ACC before July 2020. Clearly the numbers of people attending has financial implications, so it is hard to see how any discussion of the invitations would not be relevant.

Unity is another of the ACC objectives. Archbishop Justin has been using this in his discussions with Bishop Robertson, one of the bishops whose spouse is excluded. Bishop Robinson told Episcopal News Service: “He [Archbishop Welby] said to me there are only two of you in the Communion in this situation, you and Mary, and he said if I invite your spouses to the Lambeth Conference, there won’t be a Lambeth Conference.”

The full text of this interview can be accessed here.

The invitations impact on the unity of the Anglican Communion, so they are relevant for discussion under that objective.   When the news was originally announced, the secretary general of the Anglican Communion, Dr Josiah Idowu-Fearon wrote a blog and it was he who affirmed ++Justin’s decision and he linked it to the Lambeth Resolution I.10.  That blog can be accessed here.

Something else that came out of the press conference at the start of ACC17 was the statement that the invitations to the Lambeth Conference are issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury and fall within that Office. This puts the it into a different legal situation. I was previously of the opinion that the discrimination was legal under the Equality Act 2010, schedule 23 paragraph 2. However, that exemption only applies to organisations. The Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury is not an organisation, so these exemptions do not apply.

To suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not fall under UK law is a claim that I find hard to credit. Certainly there are many aspects to the role, but they include being the diocesan bishop of Canterbury diocese and being a member of the House of Lords. Both of those aspects are under UK law.   A fuller list of the roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury can be found here.

It is always dangerous when those in power believe that they are not subject to the law or believe they are above the law. That is when abuses of power can so easily happen. It is easy to tell yourself that what you are doing is for the greater good or to ignore the voices of those without power when you feel that there is nobody to hold you to account for your actions and decisions.

What this has shown is the need for ++Justin to get legal advice.  He needs advice about conflict of interest under UK law. As Archbishop of Canterbury he calls the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference, chairs the meeting of Primates, and is President of the Anglican Consultative Council. Huge conflict of interest. If the ACC want to discuss the Lambeth Conference invitations, it should not be for the person issuing the invitations to also decide that his decisions cannot be discussed.

Is anyone else at the ACC familiar enough with UK company and charity law to tell the Archbishop when it is appropriate to hand the meeting over to someone else and leave the room because he has a personal interest in the decision?

Blackmail, closets and naked ambition

I have recently finished reading Frederic Martel’s book In the closet of the Vatican – Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy.

in the closet of the vatican

It is a meticulously researched book about the Vatican and those in power there. One of its conclusions is that those in power in the Vatican, especially pope emeritus Benedict XVI, have been fighting the wrong battle. Martel shows that in campaigning against homosexuality and homosexuals, the church has created a culture where clerical child abuse and abuse of vulnerable adults can thrive. By fighting something which is legal, loving and between consenting adults, it has not only failed to focus on protecting the vulnerable, but has created an environment where protection of the institution has been put above protecting the vulnerable. The book makes compelling reading.

A key feature of Martel’s argument is that if someone who is homosexual in the church finds out about child abuse, they find it very problematic to report that abuse because of the threat of blackmail. ‘If you report me for child abuse, I’ll report that you are homosexual and tell them about your boyfriend.’ There are too many instances where the outed homosexual cleric has been reduced to the status of laity and the abuser has been moved with only a slap on the wrist. As the British security services discovered, when people are forced to stay in the closet, they are liable to blackmail and bigger secrets can be left unreported.

For the record, Martel suggests three steps that he considers essential if the Catholic Church is to deal effectively with child abuse, (i) end clerical celibacy, (ii) accept homosexuality and (iii) ordain women.

This has led me to consider how this would play out in the Church of England today.

Imagine a situation where a report about child abuse is made to a bishop, but the source is not entirely credible, or there is a lack of proof. They decide to be diligent and investigate anyway. Until the blackmail threat arrives – drop the investigation and cover it up or the fact that they are homosexual will be made public, along with the information about his same-sex partner, bringing with it the threat that ‘You will be finished in this diocese’.

If that bishop were the CEO of a UK company, they could simply call a press conference, come out, call the police and report the blackmail. Diligence and integrity rewarded. Anyone in the Church of England doing that would find that their chances of career advancement would be over.

The thing about being vulnerable to blackmail is that once you have covered up one thing, it becomes harder to deal openly with anything else.

It could also lead to the, hypothetical, case of a bishop covering up some reported incident, so that they can stay in the closet and years later the reports come out anyway. Then that bishop faces condemnation for a safeguarding failure by not acting on reports of abuse and the only way to defend their inaction would be to admit they were being pressurised to keep quiet. For them it is lose-lose, they either willingly covered up abuse or they admit to being in the closet. Either way it will be difficult to remain in post.

We need a climate of openness and honesty. As the Very Revd Jeffrey John reminded us all recently in his powerful Voices of Hope reflection, based on John 8.32, ‘the truth will set you free’.  This is available to read here.  We need a climate where truth can set us free. Free to be who we are, free to be honest about the problems in the church and free to set about building a safe church environment where the kingdom of God can flourish.

It has been over six years since the House of Bishops in the Church of England concluded that there was no impediment to those in a civil partnership being ordained to the episcopate.   Report available here.  The important part is item 7, which confirmed ‘that the requirements … concerning the eligibility for ordination of those in civil partnerships whose relationships are consistent with the teaching of the Church of England apply equally in relation to the episcopate.’

The relevant documentation affirming this is GS Misc 44 CHOOSING BISHOPS – THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 (REVISED).  This can be accessed here.  [Note – this document dates from before women were admitted to the episcopate, so all references are male.]

The most important sections are # 25, 28 and 30.

25. A person’s sexual orientation is, in itself, irrelevant to their suitability for episcopal office or indeed ordained ministry more generally. It would, therefore, be wrong if, during the consideration of a nomination to a diocesan see by the CNC or the selection process for a suffragan see, account were taken of the fact that a candidate had identified himself as of homosexual orientation.
28. It follows that clergy in civil partnerships who are living in accordance with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality can be considered as candidates for the episcopate.
30. As in the case of divorce and further marriage, the fact that there may be those who are in a non-sexually active civil partnership who have been added to the preferment list does not mean that the CNC, or the diocesan bishop and those advising him in relation to a suffragan nomination, are thereby precluded from imposing a requirement that anyone in a civil partnership cannot be nominated to the particular office concerned. Those responsible for making the nomination are entitled in law to reach a judgement on whether the fact that someone is in a civil partnership would prove an obstacle to nomination given the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of those worshipping members of the Church of England to whom the bishop concerned would (once appointed) be ministering.

The Pilling report (GS 1929), did not have a problem with ordaining homosexual bishops either. It required all candidates for ordination to abide by the church’s policies, without discrimination.   Yet in the years since the House of Bishops’ decision in December 2012, no openly gay bishop has been appointed, either in a civil partnership or single.

It is interesting that since 2012, the Church of England has decided to ordain women bishops and so far there are 19 female bishops selected.   The first ever female bishop was announced less than 6 months after the decision.

In 2012, the House of Bishops initiated the Turning Up the Volume programme to increase the number of BAME clergy in senior appointments within the Church of England. This has led to more BAME bishops, including the first female BAME bishop – the Bishop of Loughborough.

Yet we are still waiting for the appointment of a bishop who is openly homosexual – male or female, partnered or single.  Anyone who has ambition in the church will get the message that staying in the closet is that only way to be considered for advancement.   Making the closet unnecessary would make the church a better place for all of us.

Safeguarding, gay bishops and the Lambeth Conference.

Safeguarding is the thing that is very much on my mind at the moment. The other thing that is on my mind is the issue of gay bishops at the next Lambeth Conference. While I was fact-checking my previous blog Gay bishops, legal discrimination and the Lambeth Conference, available here, I was reminded of the exorcism incident at the 1998 Lambeth conference.

For those who are not familiar with that incident, Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma of Enugu, Nigeria attempted to exorcise the “homosexual demons” from the Reverend Richard Kirker, leader of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. [The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement has now been renamed OneBodyOneFaith].  Kirker’s response to the attempted exorcism was “May God bless you, sir, and deliver you from your prejudice against homosexuality.” Information taken from the lgbtarchive.uk available here.

Further information can be found at the BBC archive here.

A full account of the exorcism incident can be found in chapter 8 of Stephen Bates’ book A Church at war: Anglicans and Homosexuality.

a church at war    Available to purchase here.

At the following Lambeth Conference in 2008, the only openly gay bishop – Gene Robinson, the bishop of New Hampshire in the Episcopal church in the United States – was not invited to attend. He did visit the UK that year, he had a new book to promote called In the Eye of the Storm.

in the eye of the storm   Available to purchase here.

One of the things I found particularly moving in this book is the account that Gene Robinson and his partner Mark had to wear bulletproof vests for Robinson’s consecration as bishop because they had received death threats from other Christians.

There have been gay bishops at previous Lambeth Conferences, but they have not been open about their sexuality, but have remained in the closet. Much safer there, I am sure.

Rt Revd Mary Glasspool, is the second openly gay bishop, and so far the only lesbian bishop, in the Anglican communion. This means that for the first time, there will be openly gay bishops at the Lambeth Conference. Who is responsible for their safety? Who will make sure that they won’t be facing an exorcism on the way to breakfast or checking that they won’t have to sit through a call for repentance and giving up ‘their gay lifestyle’ at morning prayer or being told that ‘God hates them’ or they are ‘an abomination’ etc as they find a seat at a seminar?

Conferences in the UK usually start with a statement about safe space and respecting others. Will anyone make that expectation clear or will we have more of the usual ‘looking forward to some interesting debates’ anglobabble?  The bishops will be there at Justin Welby’s invitation, so he has a duty of care for them. How seriously will he take that responsibility when he has already shown himself willing to discriminate against the same bishops?

Nor should we forget that there is an openly gay bishop in the church of England. This was widely reported in 2016 when the bishop of Grantham came out in an interview with the Guardian newspaper.  This can be read here.

My memory of that was that he was in a civil partnership, but fact checking for this article, I could not find a reference that explicitly stated that. My memory may be incorrect on that point. The only references I found were similar to those in the Guardian that refer to a long term, and celibate, partner. Will the bishop of Grantham’s partner be invited to the Lambeth Conference or not? They are not married, so they do not fall foul of the Resolution I.10 ‘standard’ as outlined by the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Dr Josiah Idowu-Fearon here.

As a general question, would the civil partner of an English bishop be invited or not? It was December 2012 when the House of Bishops concluded that there was no impediment to those in a civil partnership being ordained bishop. This is set out in the updated, 2013, CHOOSING BISHOPS – THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 (REVISED) GS Misc 1044 , which can be accessed here. 

So far we are still waiting. By way of a contrast, it was decided in July 2014 that women could be ordained bishops and the first female bishop was appointed later the same year. After over six years, we are still waiting for someone in a civil partnership to be ordained bishop. There is still time before July 2020 for that to happen. Would their civil partner be invited or not?

The Lambeth Conference website does not have any information about safeguarding. It does not even state who has responsibility for safeguarding. It has a page where we can ‘meet the team’ but no way to contact them to ask.  I would like to raise safeguarding with the team putting the conference together. Knowing the history of the conference and the way that gay bishops have been treated in the past, safeguarding them needs to be on their agenda.

Gay bishops, legal discrimination and the Lambeth Conference.

There has been a lot of recent media coverage of the treatment of bishops who are in same sex marriages and the way that their spouses have not been invited to the 2020 Lambeth Conference.

mary glasspool
Rt Revd. Mary Glasspool, an assistant Bishop in the Episcopal diocese of New York, had this to say about the letter Archbishop Justin Welby sent to her to ‘outvite’ her spouse of 31 years, Becki Sander.

bishop kevin robertson
The Canadian suffragan bishop, Rt Revd Kevin Robertson who is the Area Bishop for York-Scarborough in the Diocese of Toronto is married to Mohan Sharma.
Bishop Kevin was interviewed by the Church Times. The interview is accessible here.

So far, two married bishops and two outvitations.

bishop thomas brown
However the Episcopal Church in the United States has very recently elected Revd Thomas Brown to be the next bishop of Maine. He is in a same sex marriage as well, being married to Revd Thomas Mousin. Assuming that his election is confirmed by the other Episcopal dioceses, he is due to be consecrated as a bishop in June this year. This will give the Anglican communion a third bishop in a same sex marriage. Should we assume that he will also be told that his husband will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference? A  report on the election can be read here.

Between now and the start of the Lambeth conference on July 22nd 2020, how many other bishops will be elected who have same-sex partners? What will the status of their partners be?

The Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Dr Josiah Idowu-Fearon tried to explain in his blog that ‘I need to clarify a misunderstanding that has arisen. Invitations have been sent to every active bishop. That is how it should be – we are recognising that all those consecrated into the office of bishop should be able to attend. But the invitation process has also needed to take account of the Anglican Communion’s position on marriage which is that it is the lifelong union of a man and a woman. That is the position as set out in Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. Given this, it would be inappropriate for same-sex spouses to be invited to the conference. The Archbishop of Canterbury has had a series of private conversations by phone or by exchanges of letter with the few individuals to whom this applies.’ The full text of his blog can be accessed here.   The text of Resolution I.10 can be found here.

Dr Idowu-Fearon has made it clear that ‘the Anglican Communion’s position on marriage which is that it is the lifelong union of a man and a woman.’ There are two elements to this and somehow it is only the second part that seems to provoke outvitations to legal spouses. No bishop who has been divorced and remarried has had their invitation rescinded, nor have previously married spouses been left out. Only those in same sex marriages have been treated in this way. Treating those in a same sex marriage differently from those in an opposite sex marriage is discrimination.

In previous Lambeth Conferences there has been a programme for the bishops and a separate programme for their spouses. This year, for the first time, there is a joint programme for the bishops together with their spouses. The Lambeth Conference website has a FAQ section and one of the questions is ‘Why is it a joint conference?’ Their answer is:
‘The joint conference is in recognition of the vital role spouses play across the Anglican Communion and a desire to support them in their ministry. The intention is for every spouse to develop their ministry through their participation in the conference. There is recognition that fellowship will be a key aspect for spouses.’
Full list of questions available here.

Is there a touch of irony in the phrase ‘every spouse’? Surely, if the role of the episcopal spouse is so vital, then it is defeating the purpose of the conference to exclude some of the spouses. Unless there is a subtext that the conference only sees those in opposite sex marriages as spouses and wants to make a point that marriage is only affirmed between a man and a woman.

It has been questioned whether this discriminatory treatment is legal in this country. The Lambeth Conference is a charity that is registered in the UK, charity number 1121679. This means that the Lambeth Conference is subject to UK law, specifically the 2010 Equality Act. The Equality Act allows some exemptions (Schedule 23 paragraph 2) and it looks like the Lambeth Conference comes under this, so it would be legal to discriminate. However, if this were challenged, they would have to show that excluding same sex spouses is necessary to comply with ‘the doctrine of the Organisation’ or ‘the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers’. While the religious conviction part might be true worldwide, I doubt it is the case in the UK. I think that, unfortunately, only the two bishops or their same sex spouses would have the legal standing to bring a case to test this legally.

The question of same sex marriage is not contained in any of the creeds nor is it in any of the authorised liturgies of the Church of England which means that Lambeth resolution I.10 does not have the status of doctrine. Lambeth resolutions are not mandatory and have to be adopted by each province individually. By specifically relying on Lambeth I.10, Dr Idowu-Fearon may be ruling out an exemption based on doctrine, because he is showing that the basis of the exclusion is something other than doctrine.

Lambeth I.10 is very much at the forefront of GAFCON literature. In 2008, at the first GAFCON conference in Jerusalem, they issued the Jerusalem Statement. Anyone wishing to attend subsequent GAFCON conferences has had to agree to this Statement. Section 8 of the Jerusalem Statement declares that:
8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.
Full text of the Jerusalem statement can be accessed here. 

What we appear to be seeing in the preparations for Lambeth 2020 is GAFCON inspired ideology, in line with their priorities and structured to idealise opposite sex marriage. This is not in accordance with the equality values of the English people that the Church of England is established to serve.

In order to be able to be registered as a charity, it is necessary to show that the organisation has ‘public benefit’. I checked out the Lambeth Conference’s statement of public benefit with the charity commission website. The third and final paragraph of the public benefit statement says:
‘Most people are likely to become disciples of Jesus if Christians live a Christ like life amongst them, share the good news of Jesus, demonstrate God’s love and prayerfully expect the Spirit’s power to transform individuals, communities and whole nations.’

I fail to see how the exclusion of same sex spouses is living a Christ like life and I seriously doubt this will encourage anyone in this country to become a disciple of Jesus.
I would like to know how those organising the 2020 Lambeth Conference will live up to their own public benefit statement.

Peace be with you – and the Living in Love and Faith process.

Last November, I went to the Transforming Theology conference at Cambridge University, organised by Alex Clare-Young, who has been named as a new member of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) Co-ordinating group.
One of the speakers, Ph.D. student Kenneth Wilkinson-Roberts, gave a talk on peace studies and applied this to the Church of England’s Shared Regional Conversation process and its strategy of good disagreement. I was very taken with the ideas at the time and I am starting to see some of this approach in the LLF process.
Good disagreement polarises the debate, it encourages a move to more extreme positions, because there is a commitment that ‘both sides of the debate must be heard’. One effect of this is that anyone who wants their voice to be heard must be at either end of the debate and so the more moderate voices do not get heard. Another big effect of good disagreement is that it makes people solidify their views, by emphasising the differences between people’s positions and does not allow for the development of a range of more nuanced views.
At last week’s General Synod presentation on LLF, it was announced that the new approach would move away from good disagreement and would now be ‘appreciative disagreement’ which does allow for more nuanced views and emphasises understanding other points of view.
One positive effect of a peace studies approach is that it brings the discussion towards the centre and away from the silos at the extremes. If this marginalises some of the toxic views that are currently being expressed, then I welcome this. Some extreme opinions are being given a platform that is totally undeserved by the number of people holding those extreme views.
I hope that this move towards the centre will help those with power in the Church of England to realise that the current anti-gay and anti-trans positions, together with a legacy of institutional racism and misogyny have created a toxic brand that the people of England do not want from their national church.
One fear is that after LLF is complete, that it will be like so many reports in the past which have not made any lasting changes. I doubt that LLF will solve all the problems the church has with human sexuality, but if they can permanently change the nature of the debate, then it is something I really welcome.
Dr Eeva John, as the enabling officer of LLF, has the hardest job in the Church of England. Eeva John, may peace be with you.