A WARNING that the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) could have “a substantial unintended symbolic and theological impact” is among the many cautionary notes sounded in a paper produced by the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) to guide the Bishops’ deliberations on the long run of the prayers.
The Doctrine of Marriage and the Prayers of Love and Faith: Texts and contexts was among the many handful of early General Synod papers published last week before next February’s group of sessions.
The House of Bishops was supplied with this paper — alongside two others by the Commission and latest legal advice — for its meeting in October, before announcing that bespoke services for the PLF would must be approved through a proper synodical processes — the Canon B2 route (News,17 October). The Bishops also said that there could be no immediate change to the rule that the clergy mustn’t enter into same-sex marriages.
The release of the papers has given rise to speculation about whether particular elements helped to bring concerning the Bishops’ decision. But the Church Times understands that concern concerning the fracturing of the Church played a big part. In February, the Synod was supplied with a draft Code of Practice for Pastoral Reassurance through Delegated Episcopal Ministry (DEM).
The code was designed to “enable specific areas of episcopal ministry to be formally delegated from a diocesan bishop to an episcopal colleague” for “churches and ministers where clear theological differences on the usage of the PLF are present”. Ordinands would give you the option to request a DEM bishop as their sponsoring and ordaining bishop, who could also license clergy and lay ministers and be involved in appointments.
Some had sought to go further, nevertheless. The Alliance — a network of church organisations against the changes — had been encouraging incumbents to influence their PCCs to pass a resolution stating that, if the Church of England moved forward with either stand-alone services or clergy same-sex marriage, the parish would take at the very least one among a set of actions: looking for “alternative episcopal oversight”, a call to “reroute their diocesan financial contributions”, and moves to “encourage ordinands to take part in an orthodox vocations programme” (News, 17 October). The Church Times understands that these plans at the moment are on hold.
In a pastoral letter after the October statement, the Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, said that the supply set out within the draft code would have “moved us towards alternative or prolonged oversight, not on the idea of who a bishop is or what motion they could have taken, but purely on the idea of the views they could hold. Arguably, that may have taken us to a level of such complexity that it could risk breaking the Anglican model entirely.”
In a diocese resembling Chelmsford this may “risk fracturing our shared life, putting huge pressure on our Area Scheme and our desire to keep up levels of consistency and a typical direction of travel”.
While several dioceses — Oxford and London — had put in place temporary provision, Chelmsford had not, and this was “the proper thing to do”, she argued. “I sincerely hope that now, all those that are a part of the Diocese will commit to respecting and loving each other across our differences and contributing to our shared life.”
It is known that some bishops felt that the offer of DEM was already too great a concession, while the PLF were a comparatively small gain. There was concern about “sleep-walking” right into a latest ecclesial set-up with far-reaching consequences, and there have been questions on whether — whatever the presence of a code — some would still seek a “third space”.
In a latest book, Created for Love (Canterbury Press, 2025), the Rt Revd Vivienne Faull, who retired as Bishop of Bristol this yr, writes that “the creation of separate structures or enclaves” has “demeaned women and can demean LGBTIQI+ folk”.
She writes: “However determined and generous the relationships of mutuality, the assured place and sacramental provision of the Five Guiding Principles have solidified and ossified separation. Other than under the leadership of essentially the most
remarkable clergy and bishops, separate cultures have emerged, and bishops, particularly female bishops, find their ministries and identities undermined.”
The Bishops’ October statement says that, on condition that the B2 route has now been agreed, there’s “currently no need” for a latest code of practice. Many throughout the House had long supported the case for the B2 process — a view that was strengthened as disagreements throughout the Church grew.
In 2023, the Bishops introduced the PLF as “the fullest possible pastoral provision without changing the Church’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony for same-sex couples” (News, 20 January 2023).
The argument that, since they didn’t involve any change in doctrine, they didn’t require two-thirds majorities in a vote by Houses within the Synod was firmly supported by Archbishop Welby (News, 20 January 2023). In 2017, he had spoken of the necessity for “radical latest Christian inclusion within the Church” — a pledge that raised expectations and demanded an outworking.
A note on the legal position attached to an update on Living in Love and Faith, published with the Synod papers in July 2024, stated that the pastoral provision offered by the PLF represented “a pastoral outworking for a time of uncertainty that respects the Church of England’s unchanged doctrine of marriage . . .
“In up to now as making the PLF available for couples in an lively sexual relationship does involve any departure from doctrine, it nevertheless doesn’t involve a departure from doctrine ‘in any essential matter’.”
The latest Doctrine of Marriage paper is more circumspect. It warns: “When the PLF are used publicly, and particularly after they are utilized in a bespoke or occasional service, they could be seen by some to speak ecclesial endorsement of a pair’s relationship as a complete, including its sexual dimension This is true despite the fact that the actual words avoid nuptial or sacramental formulae.”
The prayers “may appear to be a natural approach to offer prayer to God in thanksgiving for a selected moment in a pair’s life”, it says. But they “could have a substantial unintended symbolic and theological impact, particularly after they occur in church buildings and are witnessed by congregations gathered specifically for that occasion”.
When it comes to make use of of the prayers in some churches, it warns that “what was intended as pastoral care may function as innovation. . . The risk is that pastoral discretion becomes doctrinal pluralism, without the theological safeguards of collective discernment. . . If liturgical practice is allowed to diverge from doctrinal principle, then the Church’s claim to be a confessing body — one which worships based on what it believes — could also be placed in jeopardy.”
A separate paper setting out legal advice notes the presence of “significant dissent” among the many Bishops with regard to commending the PLF. This may, it says, have an effect on court rulings about their lawful use. Commendation of types of service has “conventionally been by the unanimous decision . . . of the House of Bishops”.
This week, bishops rejected any suggestion that that they had resisted engaging with theological advice. But it is known that some had not had time to completely read the FAOC papers before the meeting last month. The production of the papers has also had an impact on the Commission itself. The chair, Dr Robert Innes, has spoken of an agenda “dominated” by LLF. He warned last yr that its staff were “really stretched” and that limited resources had been “squeezed” lately.
On Tuesday, the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, said: “We knew that the conclusions we reached on the meeting in October could be incredibly painful for some, and so they were made only after careful study of this very detailed work. Through it, we got here to see that the changes that LLF proposes are so profound and far-reaching that they need a full synodical process and debate in the event that they will not be to lead to division.
“In particular, many bishops were deeply concerned concerning the impact that such changes would make on the missional coherence of their dioceses. A principle of the Church from the very earliest days is episcopal leadership based on geography. To lose this may lead to a Church splintered up into different groups with overlapping and confusing leadership structures, offering weakened ministry and repair to the nation.”
Legal advice published alongside the FAOC papers sets out a provisional timetable for the authorisation of bespoke PLF services through the B2 route. According to this, the present Synod would give first consideration to the Measure in February, but the method would then be passed to the newly elected Synod in 2027. The elections are to be held next summer. Inclusive Church and Together for the Church of England have already launched an election campaign.
Analysis, page 14; letters, page 15
 could have “a substantial unintended symbolic and theological impact” is among the many cautionary notes...){kind=link}