THE delay within the timetable to finish the Living in Love and Faith process (LLF) dominated a transient discussion on the General Synod on the Thursday morning.
The LLF team apologised to members that final votes on the outstanding items wouldn’t be coming to July’s group of sessions as planned, but would now most likely must wait until November, and even next February.
A presentation on progress made was followed by inquiries to the LLF team.
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, who leads the LLF project, began the session with a presentation. “We know the Church won’t ever be perfect this side of heaven, but still we dream,” he told Synod members. Could they imagine a future together, or “are we now resigned to go our separate ways, mirroring wider society as all and sundry chooses their very own truth?” He desired to present a possible technique to hold things together, however it began with imagination, not detail, he said.
The proposals for shared episcopacy would allow congregations to stay in a relationship even when they may not comply with disagree. “It could also be that this can also be enough to permit clergy to enter same-sex civil marriages,” but more theological work was needed to substantiate that; and so the Synod wouldn’t be asked to vote on anything concrete yet. He apologised for the delay, but insisted that it will be fallacious to bring things to the Synod without completing more theological study.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, explained the part played by the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC), which he chairs. He said that some may need presumed that the 470-page LLF book would conclude all of the theological work needed, however it quickly emerged that the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) were throwing up unexpected challenges. He said that the FAOC now offered two papers from this study. The first tackled problems with ecclesiology and unity, and offered three various kinds of disagreement: apostolic, ecclesial, and sub-ecclesial. Part of the issue was that every faction disagreed about what form of disagreement they were having.
The paper also explored ideas about individual and collegiate conscience for bishops, and what costs were borne when individual bishops, in conscience, couldn’t collaborate with the entire body. Finally, it dived into distinctions between holy matrimony and civil marriage, exploring the connection between church doctrine and civil marriage, and concluded that it was unlikely that the 2 institutions were obviously distinct.
The second paper from the FAOC explored what the Church’s doctrine of marriage was, drawing out nine theses from church history. There was a “stable core” to this doctrine, despite the ever-changing social circumstances, showing that it was ultimately God’s institution given to the Church, Dr Innes said. The FAOC then considered whether the PLF contradicted these nine theses of marriage, concluding they didn’t necessarily, but bespoke or stand-alone services posed a greater risk, given their “liturgical aesthetics and context”.
The FAOC was working on further study of how and whether doctrine could possibly be modified, and whether same-sex marriage could possibly be included within the Church’s existing doctrine or not, Dr Innes said. Their conclusions would impinge directly on whether the Synod could push through the PLF quickly, or whether it needed to take a slower canonical process, he explained. Finally, the FAOC was also working on issues arising from the plans for delegated episcopal ministry.
Questions were taken in groups.
Dr Simon Clift (Winchester) asked about “delegated episcopal ministry”, saying that he struggled to grasp the rationale. The Alliance didn’t think it went far enough, and he asked when the working group “could be allowed” to return to the conclusion that what was on offer was “not fit for purpose”.
Professor Helen King (Oxford) asked in regards to the future plans for membership of the working groups, and representation of various views on them.
The Revd Dr Charlie Bell (Southwark) said that communications about LLF seemed now to concentrate on those that objected to the introduction of the fabric, and asked when the main focus would return to those for whom it had initially been launched to incorporate. In particular, he highlighted LGBTQ+ people whose “vocations are being crushed by the indecision of those on this chamber”.
Bishop Snow said that delegated episcopal ministry (DEM) as a proposal had emerged from the House of Bishops, before working groups had been given the duty of the detail. Yes, he acknowledged, some stakeholder groups had already rejected DEM as not going far enough, but there now needed to be some “delicate negotiation”. Until DEM was put into practice, the Church wouldn’t know the complete consequence of it. “Some of this could have to be tried out.”
Dr Nick Shepherd, the programme director for LLF, said that working groups would retain their membership in the approaching months, if current members would really like to proceed. He then answered Dr Bell’s query, saying that the team had boosted its communications team, and desired to develop into more proactive in telling stories about LLF and sharing what churches were doing inside LGBTQI communities.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes
Dr Simon Eyre (Chichester) noted the clarification that the PLF were intended for people and never to say anything in regards to the couple’s relationship. Given that, why did a lot of the pastoral guidance address couples, not individuals?
The Revd Dr Andrew Atherstone (Oxford) said that he couldn’t find anything within the canons which gave the House of Bishops the authority to choose on the definition and content of doctrine.
Canon Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) said that she had lost count of what number of weddings she had conducted through the years, including one where the couple had arrived wearing Goth clothing. She asked what the contextual questions on the aesthetics of bespoke PLF services were, and the way they might be considered “responsibly”.
The Bishop of Taunton, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley (Southern Suffragans), who chaired a PLF working group, replied that individuals would come forward for the PLF as a pair wishing to have their love expressed, and to know God’s blessings on them as individuals. “We’ve sought to supply advice the range of situations,” she explained, and urged clergy using the PLF to have a wide-ranging conversation with couples about what their intent was.
Dr Innes said that every one bishops shared the responsibility for defending the teaching of the Church, and interpreting it and “declaring it afresh” for every generation. There were questions that the FAOC was wrestling with — which Dr Atherstone must know, as a member of that body — in relation to vary and development in doctrine.
Dr Shepherd said the guidance had tried to not be prescriptive about “dress codes”, and as a substitute concentrate on principles. Some members of the working groups would have preferred more prescriptive guidance, he conceded.
The Revd Dr Casey Strine, the brand new theological adviser to the House of Bishops, said that an issue being explored was to what extent guidance could possibly be given on topics akin to appropriate attire at a marriage or service or blessing.
Philip Baldwin (London) asked for reassurance that LLF would come back to the Synod no later than February 2026, in order that it wasn’t delayed until the subsequent quinquennium. Lots of LGBTQ+ people were waiting, he said.
The Revd Paul Langham (Bristol) asked what resources could possibly be provided to Synod members on what should occur in certain scenarios, akin to when a PCC and incumbent disagreed in regards to the use of the PLF.
Dr Gill Frigerio (Coventry) asked for more information in regards to the discussions that will happen in diocesan synods. For many individuals, these discussions could be daunting and potentially harmful, she said.
Bishop Snow told Mr Baldwin that giving “cast-iron guarantees” was silly, and so he could promise only to attempt to bring something back to the Synod “by the newest at February 2026”. It was not inside his power to regulate the timetable.
Dr Shepherd said that the LLF team planned soon to supply resources for diocesan synods to assist them to clarify the fabric and the journey to PLF bespoke services, plus DEM. There would even be updates more incessantly, he said, as feedback from dioceses and their synods got here in over the remainder of 2025.
Bishop Worsley said that multi-parish benefices had been within the discussions in her working group, including real-life examples of the type of conversations that needed to happen in team ministries. “We would also encourage teams to make use of the Pastoral Principles and draw on the experience of LLF facilitators,” she said.
Daniel Matovu (Oxford) said that he was glad that plenty was being said on the theological advice, but still not enough had been given from the legal side. He asked that legal advice signed by the lawyers relatively than bishops must be published.
The Revd Anna de Castro (Sheffield) asked what it will take for the House of Bishops to conclude that the one way forward was to launch a Canon B2 process.
The Revd Mae Christie (Southwark) asked what priests should say to Christians offering themselves to ministry who were already in same-sex marriages. Should they be counselled to divorce?
Bishop Snow said that further discussions would occur with the Legal Office about publishing legal advice. A B2 process had not been ruled out, and is perhaps followed in the longer term, but in the mean time they were following a B5 process.
Dr Shepherd said that there was a separate working group the problem of vocations, but that it was depending on the House of Bishops’ making decisions. New guidance could be issued this yr, however it could be interim guidance, and subject to further consideration, he suggested.
Archpriest Stephen Platt (Russian Orthodox Church) said that the start of the LLF process had included an intense engagement with ecumenical partners, and asked whether there was intention to resume this, as the main focus now turned to theological study and episcopal challenges.
Mary Durlacher (Chelmsford) expressed thanks that the theological work was on the forefront, but said that she felt that it was “harder by the day” to work out the cultural context wherein this work was being done. There were “red lines” marking the extent to which Christian faith could possibly be reconciled with currents in the broader culture.
Sandra Turner’s (Chelmsford) parish already had oversight from the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, but this was patchy nationally, because it trusted the consent of the diocesan bishop. What confidence could she be provided that DEM would work higher and avoid the “diocesan postcode lottery”?
Dr Innes said that the FAOC’s work on episcopacy involved serious about ecumenical relations. Consultation with ecumenical partners would happen.
One of the theological advisers to the House of Bishops, the Dean of Chelmsford, the Very Revd Dr Jessica Martin, said that the FAOC was “continuously serious about the interface” of culture and the gospel. “We are attentive to it,” she said.
Bishop Snow said that there could be a national framework for regional groupings of bishops to then determine tips on how to offer provision locally. This was not the ultimate product, and more work was required, including consultation now with dioceses. He assured members that this consultation could be real and meaningful, and never simply a fig leaf.
Canon Andy Salmon (Manchester) said that almost all people thought that more progress would have been made. What could the “extraordinary punters” do to assist speed up the method, he asked.
The Revd Charlotte Cook (Archbishops’ Council) asked Bishop Snow: “What is it that we might be praying for, for you and your team?”
Bishop Snow said that there wouldn’t be a “easy technical fix that may suddenly make the whole lot right”. This was a part of learning tips on how to witness to a wider world where there have been differences as well. The Synod must abandon any hope that they may one way or the other find an easy solution to their differences. In response to Ms Cook, he said that his prayer was that dioceses could have “healthy conversations” together, and help the Church on its “discipleship journey”.
