We all know the Church of England is ‘divided’ over homosexuality. But it’s not a very equal division. Reform is favoured by a clear majority of bishops, the clergy and Anglican worshippers. So how are the conservative evangelicals managing to hold back the tide?

Perhaps the problem is a lack of leadership. The archbishops have not dared to reveal what sort of change they want, beyond saying that there should be blessings for gay couples. The other bishops have echoed the evasion.

‘I was seeking to be a focus of unity by not saying what I thought’

Only one senior bishop has articulated a clearer reformist vision. Just over a year ago, the Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, broke ranks and said what he really thought – up to a point. In a booklet called ‘Together in Love and Faith’, he argued that gay blessings were not enough – the Church should allow openly gay clergy and conduct gay weddings, too. The intervention annoyed his senior colleagues. The archbishops wanted a united front on the introduction of gay blessings, with no talk of further reforms round the corner. Only two other diocesan bishops expressed support for his stand.

It might seem surprising that Croft’s background is evangelical. In fact, this makes sense. A liberal Anglo-Catholic is likely to have become jaded and cynical on the issue around the turn of the millennium. The relative zeal of the convert is needed. Also, the Protestant mind resists the old high-church habit of rarefied doublethink, camp irony, performative muddle – and the whispered hint that gay people have an edgy dispensation from behavioural norms. Let’s sort this out, it says, let daylight in.

When I meet Croft over Zoom, he is wearing a low-church blue jumper – there is no visible dog-collar, let alone episcopal purple. I am struck by his air of calm frankness. He does not treat me as a hostile interrogator trying to catch him out, but as a fellow Anglican, part of the conversation.

He used to share the conservative evangelical view of homosexuality. When and how did this change? ‘My mind on this issue changed gradually during my seven years as bishop of Sheffield, through talking with LGBT clergy. But at that time I was seeking to be a focus of unity by not saying what I thought.’ The phrase ‘focus of unity’ is part of a bishop’s job description: he or she must try to keep everyone on board, even if that means keeping certain views quiet, or hazy. Only later do I think of the obvious rejoinder: can I be sure he is now saying what he thinks, or is he still trying to be a focus of unity?

Then in 2016, Croft was appointed to Oxford. The division over homosexuality is particularly sharp in that disputatious little city. As well as the erudite liberals one would expect, there are bullish evangelical parishes, some of which contest his authority. ‘One of my early convictions was that not saying what I thought was not going to be a good way of holding the diocese together,’ he says. ‘I felt the only possibility was to be honest about my own views and also respectful of other people’s – to seek a way forward that didn’t depend on pretending different things to different people.’ As he explains in the pamphlet, by now he knew many gay Christians whose faithful, stable relationships grounded their religious lives. ‘By their fruits shall ye know them’ became his proof-text, trumping all the conservative proof-texts, which now felt narrow and legalistic.

He was one of the bishops calling for the Church to embark on a reform process. This took the form of a long period of consultation – more than five years – during which bishops were meant to uphold the conservative line. ‘Bishops were emerging who wanted change, but I felt frustrated that so few were putting that into the public domain, so I began to feel I should write something.’

Before publishing his pamphlet, he held a series of discussions in the diocese, to make sure all points of view were being heard. These discussions are reflected in his proposals: the conservatives should be free to dissent from the changes he favours, and to develop alternative structures, so they don’t feel forced out of the Church. Of course, this is not a cost-free solution: alternative structures mean the entrenching of division, as we have seen over women clergy. But maybe a reformist bishop has to emphasise such accommodation, or he’ll sound like a Reformation zealot, collecting kindling. ‘What hasn’t gone away for me is a concern for the whole diocese, including those who are against change,’ Croft says. ‘But it’s not as binary as people assume: opponents of change are highly variegated, with a large middle-ground, and many evangelicals advocating change of some sort.’

Soon after his pamphlet appeared, the archbishops unveiled their policy of introducing blessings for gay couples, and also announced that new ‘pastoral guidance’ on homosexuality would soon be issued, replacing the existing guidance that bans actively gay clergy. The policy was backed by Synod, but soon ran into trouble. Conservative evangelicals objected that it threatened the traditional teaching on marriage: a doctrinal innovation needs a two-thirds majority in each of the three houses of synod, rather than a simple majority. In November a tetchy compromise was scratched out: the blessings, known as ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’, would be permitted on an experimental basis (initially as part of a normal service, with stand-alone events to follow). The new ‘pastoral guidance’ was delayed.

The reformers pushed this through by toeing the line that the traditional teaching on marriage was unaffected. But wasn’t that a tad dishonest? This is what I really want to ask the bishop about: the doctrine of marriage. In his pamphlet he stops short of calling for the Church to change the doctrine, but isn’t that an evasion? I put it to him that it’s incoherent to say that we want gay blessings, gay clergy, gay marriage, but we still want to keep the old doctrine of marriage in place. In reality the doctrine needs to be changed, doesn’t it?

He pauses. ‘Um, yes and no. What I am wanting to argue for is not a complete abolition of the doctrine of marriage, it’s an extension of it, to see the goods of marriage, or many of those goods, in same-sex relationships.’ OK, but that’s still a change to doctrine, and the leadership is discouraging honesty about that, isn’t it? He replies with steady care. ‘I think it’s good to advocate honesty in argument and debate, but also that it’s possible to advocate honesty and also accept incremental change as the best, or best possible available, route towards change. Last year this emerged as the dominant view of those who wanted to see change in the General Synod, including its sexuality group, and I feel that its decision to commend the Prayers of Love and Faith, which led to the first blessings taking place in December, was a very important moment: I think it will normalise, and give permission for, and make more visible, same-sex relationships in the Church.’

So a fuller and more honest reform will soon be possible? ‘My sense is that the ground has shifted significantly in parishes, and among clergy. There is not yet a two-thirds majority in Synod in favour of a change to doctrine, which means that that’s not a fruitful route to pursue, but recent polling does suggest that a majority of Anglicans do want to see a more inclusive church. And so the incremental way of proceeding does seem to me to be responsible leadership. But I agree this is potentially a big change in the Church of England, it’s not a small thing.’

‘What I am wanting to argue for is not an abolition of the doctrine of marriage, it’s an extension of it’

Is the bishop right that messy incrementalism is the only way forward? Maybe so, if the Church is ready for some practical reforms, but not for doctrinal change: maybe the bishops are justified in charting this awkward course, despite its theological incoherence. But surely there must also be honesty, whether it comes from bishops or others, that the Church must adapt its doctrine of marriage. Otherwise the liberal cause becomes associated with dishonesty, a pretence that we only want these minor changes that don’t affect the doctrine of marriage. Also, whatever reforms do painfully emerge will have an air of illegitimacy, if the old doctrine stands.

A few days after I talked to the bishop, campaigners were invited to Lambeth Palace, ahead of this month’s Synod. They were told that no further steps will be taken for now – not until the conservatives are satisfied that structures are in place to accommodate their dissent. Only when a ‘settlement’ is agreed will the process resume. That means a halt on plans to try out gay blessings in their full form (stand-alone services resembling weddings) – even though Synod voted this through. It also means another delay to the promised ‘pastoral guidance’ that will, it is assumed, legitimise gay clergy. So all of last year’s angst has led to a few millimetres of reform, and a hardening of conservative opposition. Might it also prompt a new liberal boldness, an appetite for straight-talking?