Secondly, unless something almost miraculous happens, there will remain deep divisions over where those boundaries of legitimacy are to be drawn and over the implications for church teaching and discipline of drawing them in different places. Related to this are the questions noted above concerning our disagreement about the level of disagreement that we are having to navigate. Here the recent FAOC work must not be forgotten and in particular the implications need to be considered of its strong and clear statement (GS Misc 1406, paper 1, para 139), that
it is a failure of Christian love for one side to declare what kind of disagreement is being experienced by the other. It must surely be the case that those who disagree with a given decision are themselves determinative of what kind of disagreement is in view, not the content majority. Those who dissent from the majority view or decision get to define the nature of their disagreement: if it is widely held that such-and-such a belief or practice calls into question apostolic communion or ecclesial communion, then the disagreement simply is a first- or second-order disagreement, regardless of whether the majority think it merely strains communion (third order).
This is the deeper problem with the approach of the amendment: it appears that those who conscientiously have come to a position which represents a rejection or expansion or development of traditional teaching seem to be demanding that those who are not convinced by their arguments should nevertheless accept that their view is now within a “legitimate range of theological perspectives” and/or that if a majority can be shown to hold this view as to what is legitimate then church practice needs to adapt to embrace the full range of perspectives. There is an attempt to jump from acknowledgment of an indisputable pluralism in reality (a range of views clearly exists) to a pluralism that recognises that range of views as acceptable, indeed, legitimate.
Thirdly, as noted in the first proposed amendment, part of the remit of the new group set up by the bishops is “pastoral reassurance”. This points to the fact that our disagreements over the previous two areas are such that some form of ecclesial reconfiguration will most likely prove to be necessary if any way is to be found, within the Church of England, for opposing views to be able to be officially approved and for the opposing sides in votes such as that this week in Synod, to be able to co-exist well, even flourish. This might be understood as institutionally enabling some recognised form of principled pluralism that comes to terms with both the pluralist reality and the impossibility of sufficiently widespread acceptance of that pluralism being formally accepted as legitimate within the current episcopal and synodical structures.
It was the refusal of the bishops to seriously address these matters of “pastoral reassurance” or “good differentiation” that in large part contributed to the winding up of the LLF/PLF process. We could continue with a “head in the sand” refusal to grapple with the ecclesiological implications of our deep disagreements about discipleship and about the legitimate range of discipleship options the Church of England can recognise and bless. The experience of this last, short debate in this recent Synod is, however, a further pointer to the fact that if we do not face this question head-on and with honesty and theological rigour early in the new Synod then, barring a sea-change one way or the other in the election results, and perhaps also now in the House of Bishops, we are simply preparing for continued unresolvable conflict and pain in the next five years.
Andrew Goddard on the Helen King motion discussion at CofE General @synod 'This is the deeper problem with the approach of the amendment: it appears that those who conscientiously have come to a position which represents a rejection or expansion or development of traditional… pic.twitter.com/U3ZkfLUbBN
— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) July 20, 2026