The Synod ends and the Church moves on

Synod rejects church's gay 'marriage' advice
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:11am GMT 01/03/2007

The Church of England was in disarray over homosexuality this evening after the General Synod refused to endorse the bishops' controversial policy on gay "marriages".
The House of Bishops issued pastoral guidance in 2005 saying that gay clergy could enter into civil partnerships, but only if they first assured their bishops that they would abstain from sex.
But conservatives and liberals unexpectedly united today to reject a description by the bishops of their guidance as a "balanced and sensitive attempt" to apply Church teaching to civil partnerships. Instead, the Synod supported a motion acknowledging deep splits over the issue and encouraging the bishops to review their policy.

The Synod decision will be seen as a slap in the face for the bishops, who presented a unified front in defence of their guidance today even though they are themselves profoundly divided.
But the Synod also rejected criticism of the bishops by conservative evangelicals that their policy undermined heterosexual marriage by effectively condoning gay "marriage".

In an often passionate debate, dissatisfaction with the bishops' guidelines was voiced by a range of speakers, and even several bishops expressed unease. A number of gay clergy and laity spoke openly about the value of their own sexually active relationships, although such behaviour is supposedly in breach of Church teaching.

The Rev Paul Collier, from south London, who is in a civil partnership, argued that the bishops' guidance was too intrusive.
Mr Collier, a chaplain at Goldsmiths College, asked married members of Synod how they would feel if their bishop asked them if they were having sex, as he and his partner had been. He said that a physical sexual relationship was very important in helping love to develop between two people.

Dr Julian Litten, from north London, said that when he had entered a civil partnership recently a friend had asked him whether that meant that he was a practicing homosexual, to which he had jokingly replied that he was a fully qualified one.
He said that he and his partner had been together for 31 years, longer than many heterosexual marriages, and the Government had been "more Christian" towards gays than the Church.

The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev John Gladwin, insisted that civil partnership legislation had not changed Church teaching on marriage, as conservatives argued.
He said that he had recently attended the civil partnership ceremony for two churchwardens, and felt that the Church must offer pastoral support for such couples even if it could not bless their relationship formally.

The Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Rev Peter Selby, said that such partnerships showed commitment, and they were "one of the finest tributes to marriage of this generation".
But conservatives attacked the bishops' guidance saying that it undermined Church teaching because it appeared to be condoning what was widely perceived as gay "marriage" among the clergy.

The Rev Paul Perkin, an evangelical vicar from south-west London, said that the bishops appeared to have no means of enforcing discipline if clergy refused to assure them about their sexual abstinence. "There is no clear statement as to how assurances are to be sought, or what is to happen if they are not forthcoming," he said.
"It has been suggested that it is debatable whether the pastoral guidelines could have provided clear means to ensure its teaching was enforced - however this should have been foreseen and addressed."

In an earlier debate on homosexuality, the Synod toned down a liberal motion on homosexuality amid fears that it could upset delicate negotiations within the Anglican Communion.
Church of England bishops said they were concerned it could send an "ambiguous" message to the wider world, especially just after last week's meeting of the Anglican primates in Tanzania.
The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Rev Michael Perham, said there were "better moments and worse moments" to face an issue where there was "no consensus".