{"id":145808,"date":"2026-06-11T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-11T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=145808"},"modified":"2026-06-11T19:08:10","modified_gmt":"2026-06-11T23:08:10","slug":"psephizo-ian-paul-helen-kings-motion-for-general-synod-a-help-or-a-hindrance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=145808","title":{"rendered":"(Psephizo) Ian Paul\u2013Helen King\u2019s motion for General Synod: a help or a hindrance?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Thirdly<\/em>, this raises the question about the three descriptors that have been chosen in the motion and what they mean, especially if they are to include within their scope sexual relationships. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A classic statement advocating same-sex unions (and later marriage) is that by Jeffrey John which was entitled Permanent, Faithful, Stable<\/em>. These three terms are also in need of more careful definition but how significant is it that both \u201cpermanent\u201d and \u201cstable\u201d are lacking here? What conclusions are to be drawn from the fact they have been replaced simply by \u201ccommitted\u201d with no explanation as to the nature or level of that commitment?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There has been a long concern about occasional and non-exclusive male same-sex sexual relationships being acceptable, including among gay Christians (see for example the 1997 work of Andrew Yip<\/a> whose research with gay male Christian couples found \u201cthe majority of couples were expectationally and behaviourally non-exclusive; the recently deceased leading campaigner Malcolm Johnson expressed surprise in his Diary of a Gay Priest <\/em>that \u201ca third are physically faithful\u2014or say they are!\u201d). Leaving that question open is one reason the LGCM statement quoted above offered no criteria as to when expressing love fully in a sexual relationship was entirely compatible with the Christian faith (see Sean Gill, The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement <\/em>(Cassell, 1998), pp. 12-13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a world of rapidly changing sexual norms there is now much wider discussion and acceptance of \u201cethical non-monogamy\u201d (ENM). As briefly explained in this \u201cethics explainer\u201d from The Ethics Centre<\/a> this is distinguished from \u201cinfidelity\u201d and \u201ccheating\u201d. Here it is not unreasonable to ask whether those in such an ENM form of relationship might nevertheless still be able to be classed as in a \u201ccommitted, faithful, intimate\u201d form of relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>

Helen King's motion for General Synod: a help or a hindrance? https:\/\/t.co\/cIA8Evq875<\/a> via @psephizo<\/a><\/p>— Simon Sarmiento (@simonsarmiento) June 2, 2026<\/a><\/blockquote>