THE many “twists and turns” of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) journey that had led to its conclusion were the topic of a presentation on Tuesday afternoon from five bishops and the Dean of Bristol.
Introducing it, the Archbishop of York, who chairs the LLF programme board, said: “I do know lots of us would reasonably not be talking about LLF. I do know lots of you feel hurt, offended, confused, perhaps bitterly disenchanted about where we’re.”
The Church remained divided on these issues, and for that “I’m deeply sorry,” Archbishop Cottrell said. But he hoped that this item would transparently explain how the LLF journey had come up to now — why the Bishops believed that this project needed to conclude — but additionally to present thanks for the work of the people involved, and “the nice things which have happened along the way in which.”
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Mandy Ford (Southern Deans), turned the clock back to 2017, when the Synod had voted to not pay attention to a previous House of Bishops paper on same-sex relationships — the product of years of “shared conversations” on sexuality. Because of this, the then Archbishops had launched a call for a “radical latest Christian inclusion”, recognising how the Church had failed in its welcome to LGBTQ people. This had prompted the LLF programme, which had begun in 2018 with working groups to explore identity, sexuality, relationships, and marriage.
By 2021, the LLF book, course, and other resources had been produced, in addition to “pastoral principles” to guide the Church in tips on how to think and speak well about these issues, Dean Ford explained. Every diocese had also engaged in an LLF consultation, feeding right into a next-steps group formed in 2022. By January 2023, the Bishops had been able to issue the primary draft of the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF), a service of blessing for same-sex couples, and in addition an apology to LGBTQ people.
The Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Pete Wilcox, explained how, in February 2023, the bishops had brought the PLF and an accompanying motion to the Synod.
“This has been hard but vital work,” he told members. The motion lamented and repented harm caused to LGBT people, he said, and urged the Church to proceed to learn together on the LLF journey. It also called for an end to the usage of the document Issues in Human Sexuality, and affirmed that the PLF must not indicate any departure from the doctrine of marriage.
Later in 2023, the Bishops formally commended PLF to be used during other services. But, even by then, division and concerns had been arising within the House of Bishops, he said.
Speaking next, the Interim Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley, said that the Bishops had considered a trial of stand-alone PLF services in late 2023. Early in 2024, that they had brought together three groups specializing in pastoral guidance, pastoral “reassurance” for conservatives, and the stand-alone PLF. She praised the nice and cozy and pastoral nature of those working groups, as that they had bridged deeply held differences to advocate for each other.
“People shifted from being barely guarded and able to defend their very own views, to being open to latest and unexpected friendships, and an acceptance of the integrity of various views,” Bishop Worsley said.
These working groups had met commonly across 2024 and 2025, exploring different avenues to implement the February 2023 Synod motion and subsequent motions. One area of labor had looked into stand-alone PLF services, and what sort of reassurance can be required alongside them to maintain opponents of the PLF within the C of E.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, spoke in regards to the work of the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC), which, in early 2025, had published a series of papers disagreement within the Church, conscience, and marriage doctrine. These culminated in a document establishing “nine theses” on what the Church had at all times believed marriage to be. The bishops of the FAOC had decided that the PLF didn’t characterise the connection of any given couple as marriage, and, subsequently, didn’t impinge on the doctrine of marriage. But the contexts during which the PLF were used could impinge on the doctrine, Dr Innes said.
Bishop Worsley reminded the Synod the way it had voted overwhelmingly in July 2025 to finish the usage of Issues within the discernment process (as a substitute using Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy). This had been a hopeful example of agreement, despite differences. “We need to be open to inspired ideas coming from any a part of this Synod,” she said.
Dr Wilcox picked up the story, explaining that there was no real consensus among the many Bishops about how gay clergy may very well be allowed to marry, let alone the legislative process to attain this, or the supply for parishes finding themselves at odds with their bishops. Some believed that the implementation of the stand-alone PLF or relaxing discipline for gay married clergy by the bishop would require formal structures to guard their consciences, he said. “We remained divided.”
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe interim Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley
The Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, said that, around this time, he and Dr Wilcox had tried, as a thought experiment, to articulate where the House of Bishops had reached. They had begun to put in writing a letter to the Church, and to seek out areas during which they were in agreement. A draft had then been presented to the House, with options on points for which he and Dr Wilcox couldn’t come to a “common mind”. The Bishops had refined this letter over several meetings, before its publication in January as an announcement from the House. Despite disagreements, the Bishops were united on many other areas, including apologising for mistakes that had been made.
Dr Wilcox said that the Bishops had received legal advice and three more theological papers from the FAOC. Dr Innes explained that the primary paper had explored how the Church might see its doctrine develop over time, and argued that doctrine was defined by its relationship to the Bible, communally authorised by the Church. The second had explored the doctrine of marriage within the context of PLF, and concluded that symbolic actions across the standa-lone PLF could undermine that doctrine. The third paper had checked out clergy in same-sex civil marriages and asked what options is perhaps available for ordaining and licensing them.
Dr Innes said that the FAOC offered no “easy answers”, but, as a substitute, posed questions for the Bishops to ponder. “The work isn’t perfect, but is obtainable within the hope of resourcing more informed discussion and discernment,” he concluded.
The House of Bishops had met three more times to explore the ultimate points of difference over the winter of 2025-26, Dr Croft said, and, over time, things had grow to be clear. Introducing stand-alone PLF services would require a canonical synodical process, and allowing gay priests to marry would also need synodical approval. The Bishops also agreed to desert any scheme for delegated episcopal ministry, because the changes made to this point didn’t warrant such provision.
Summing up, Archbishop Cottrell said that the LLF team had succeeded in replacing Issues, and thanked members for helping the Bishops to bring this to a speedy conclusion. The Bishops had also refined and commended PLF to be used in scheduled services, but that they had discerned a distinction between this and their use in stand-alone servicesm which required fuller synodical authorisation under Canon B2. The Bishops had also decided that there was no need for a code of practice or pastoral reassurance, as things had not modified much on the bottom.
“These haven’t been easy or straightforward things to make decisions on,” he said, and lots of areas had been left unresolved. But it was “healthy” to reflect on the things that had happened and had “made a difference”. He conceded that it would feel dispiriting to look back on the LLF journey.
“There have been twists and turns and unexpected dips: I don’t think lots of us would decide to do LLF this fashion, given our time again.” But still, the Church had learned much about itself through the method.
“Yes, it has been hard, but it surely was at all times going to be hard. It is difficult to fundamentally disagree with those whom we love,” Archbishop Cottrell said.
He praised the way in which during which the Church had learned to be more honest and “undefended” about its disagreements, and tips on how to have difficult conversations nose to nose. He hoped that the forthcoming debate on the Thursday would carry these lessons learned into the longer term.
An opportunity for questions followed.
Opening these, Fiona MacMillan (London) asked in regards to the adjustments to the wording — from “stand-alone” to “bespoke” services — and why it was felt appropriate.
The Revd Adam Gaunt (York) asked that, given the constructive, honest, and pragmatic nature of the Leicester working groups, how assurance may very well be provided that the proposed Relationships, Sexuality, and Gender Working Group would learn from their experience and prove a worthy successor.
Similarly, Paul Ronson (Blackburn) asked whether there can be an equivalent working arrangement, “so that each one those that partake in these discussions will act with integrity and honesty and never undermine the route and the travel of direction that’s being set for the groups to do”.
Dr Wilcox said that he was not 100 per cent sure in regards to the vocabulary shift from “stand-alone” to “bespoke”, but believed that the change was advocated by the Liturgical Commission, after feedback from a one that wished to utilize PLF.
Bishop Worsley emphasised the importance of seeing how the Synod could “do things higher”, and to “hear each other and take care of one another”. She hoped this practice can be taken forward, the working groups having been held in person, where members worshipped and ate together. She acknowledged that it took time to construct confidence in each other, something that needs to be recognised when moving forward in any conversations, she said.
Archbishop Cottrell said that the working groups had worked well because they were residential. He emphasised the importance of praying together. “My heart at all times sinks a bit relating to prayers and the chamber sometimes empties.”
The Revd Jody Stowell (London) said that the LLF process had fallen far wanting what had been intended, and asked how the Bishops would prevent further abuse and hurt for LGBTQ Christians in the subsequent chapter of this work.
The Ven. Dr Adrian Youings (Bath & Wells) said that the presentation had been a “breezy and sanitised” version of the past three years, and asked whether “real” lessons were being learned behind closed doors. “I’ve not heard anything that tells me how we’ll do that higher.”
The Archdeacon of Bolton and Salford, the Ven. Dr Rachel Mann (Manchester), asked how LLF may very well be said to have caused a “radical, latest Christian inclusion”.
Dr Croft responded to Ms Stowell by explaining that bishops should, of their dioceses, seek to mitigate the pain felt by LGBTQ Christians through careful listening and honesty. He hoped that each one bishops had learned tips on how to engage on this, and he particularly urged the establishment of LGBTQ chaplaincies. He admitted that there had been some “over-promising” and under-delivering throughout this process, and said that he was very careful about raising hopes for a future dialogue, and was attempting to be more “sober” about it. He agreed with Dr Mann that the LLF process had not delivered a radical Christian inclusion, hence his more sober approach to the subsequent phase.
Archbishop Cottrell told Dr Youings that the primary lesson learned was to “see the face of Christ in each other”, to talk well of 1 other, even in disagreement. If that lesson may very well be absorbed by the Church, it could witness to a “polarised” world, he said. He also agreed with Dr Croft: “I feel we over promised at first.” A whole lot of time, but not enough, had been spent on considering what to bring forward to the Synod.
In 2023, it had quickly grow to be clear that different bishops had “very different understandings” of what they were proposing within the PLF motion, they usually had learned to be more honest about their disagreements. It was also vital to have the legal and theological advice “lined up and understood”, he said.
Gill Frigerio (Coventry) reflected on the changes of leadership over the course of this quinquennium for the LLF process, and asked the presenters to reflect on “the impact of among the other things that happened during this era”.
The Dean of St Edmundsbury, the Very Revd Joe Hawes (Southern Deans), asked how the Bishops intended to avoid the disconnect of 5 years’ work that had been subsequently rejected, and what structures and levels of engagement they envisaged to forestall this in the subsequent stage.
The Revd Robert Lawrance (Newcastle) said that there had been little acknowledgement of the lived experience of faithful LGBTQ people.
In terms of not including within the presentation all that had transpired, Dean Ford said that she had not wanted it to be any longer. She had an awesome desire for continuity. She said that, as every five years, 40 per cent of the Synod membership turns over, it was vital to maintain “the narrative going and holding the story”.
Dr Innes thanked Mr Lawrance for his query and for helping him to remain attentive to the necessity to include a diversity of voices. The Bishops had tried to be attentive “so far as we will” and “wherever we will achieve that”.
Bishop Worsley thanked Dean Hawes for his commitment to the working groups and sought to fulfill him privately to debate what further engagement he envisaged. “How will we hear as many voices as possible while keeping that continuity of story and direction, as the entire people of God reflecting its beauty and variety?”
The Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Revd Michael Ipgrave, who chairs the Liturgical Commission, said that the change in terminology from “stand-alone” to “bespoke” services had not been on the Commission’s request, contrary to what Dr Wilcox had said earlier.
Dr Angus Goudie (Durham) asked Dr Innes whether there have been differences of opinion inside the FAOC, as within the House of Bishops.
Julie Withers (Chester) asked whether the working group could include someone who had sought a stand-alone service of blessing for a same-sex relationship.
Dr Wilcox apologised for his error on the stand-alone/bespoke terminology and said that he would discover.
Dr Innes said that there have been loads of differences of opinion among the many theologians on the FAOC and “robust discussions”. The group had aimed to provide a text that each member could stand behind, and, while he had begun the work sceptical about whether this is able to be possible, it had happened. Sometimes this had been achieved by having texts that argued multiple points of view. At other times, the FAOC found ways of expressing itself which everybody could enroll to. “In a technique or one other, we do embody unity in difference,” he said.
Archbishop Cottrell couldn’t guarantee that an individual searching for a stand-alone service can be on the working group, but that the group can be made up of individuals with a spread of views on the difficulty.
Busola Sodeinde (London) acknowledged the positives of the presentation and asked at what point the Bishops would supply the pastoral difference by way of having a separate space and differentiation within the ways people lived out the expression of this theology.
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) asked what threshold of evidence would trigger a safeguarding motion and who can be accountable when a youngster was harmed emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually by church processes.
The Revd Martin Davy (Oxford) said that the tone of the presentation had been certainly one of “lament”. He asked whether the Synod should lead a type of repentance, not just for procedural mistakes, but for having come “perilously near impinging on the doctrine of marriage itself”.
Archbishop Cottrell said that these questions were “deeply serious”. He responded that pastoral provision was proportionate to the change that was or was not made, and that continued to be the principle. Regarding young people and their mental health, he said: “We should do all that we will to minister to and stop that taking place.” He agreed that there had been a level of lamentation and in addition “a level of realism”, and was hopeful to explore other ways forward.
Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here
 journey that had led to its conclusion were the topic of a...){kind=link}