Summary:
In the light of the House of Bishops stating that there will be no further decisions on PLF in either the February or July General Synods this year and the new papers just released, this article explores what PLF promised two years ago and what has actually been delivered. It sketches the longer history (since 2011) to show how little has changed over such a long period and the over-promising that has been a hallmark of the PLF process. It then outlines ten elements which it
proposes as the main reasons for this process proving so prolonged and painful:
- There was an episcopal rush to publication of a proposal without recognition of its legal nd theological weaknesses and the fragility of the apparent episcopal consensus.
- The novel initial legal and theological basis for the proposal was a flawed sharp distinction between civil marriage and holy matrimony.
- There was for too long a refusal to acknowledge and work on the complex doctrinal questions related to PLF and revision of the pastoral guidance.
- The addition of pastoral provision/reassurance and the promise not to proceed with PLF or Pastoral Guidance without it.
- The under-estimation of the breadth and depth of opposition to the proposals.
- Repeated process failures, lack of transparency, and widespread lack of confidence that due processes are being followed.
- The rejection of use of Canon B2.
- A belief that past legal advice could somehow be ignored, by-passed or over-turned.
- Initial confusion over the content of the church’s doctrine of marriage.
- The repeated insistence that doctrine remains unchanged and the proposals are compatible with that doctrine.
In the light of these, particularly the last two, it is claimed that what is needed now is a paradigm shift refocussing to address honestly the questions of doctrinal difference and the consequent necessary reconfiguration of episcopacy if we are not to remain stuck but find a way forward for as many as possible within the Church of England in the future.
