THE nine-year project of Living in Love and Faith (LLF), exploring provisions for LGBTQ+ people within the Church of England, was formally drawn to a detailed after one final marathon debate on the General Synod on Thursday afternoon.
After nearly five hours of argument — and at least eight failed amendments — members voted in favour of a motion from the Archbishop of York to conclude LLF.
The motion included an apology for the “distress and pain” many had suffered in the course of the LLF process, and approved the bishops’ decision to determine two recent working groups — the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group, and the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group — to proceed the work began by LLF.
Some conservative members sought, through amendments, to reshape the motion in order that it chastised the bishops for failing to maintain to legal advice; one attempted to scrap the brand new working groups entirely.
From the liberal wing, there have been efforts to amend the motion in the opposite direction, directing the working group to maneuver at speed towards permitting standalone blessings for same-sex couples or, in a single case, perpetuating the LLF programme into the longer term.
After much debate, nonetheless, each amendment was defeated, and the bishops’ original plan to show the page on a contentious season within the lifetime of the Church of England was approved.
Opening the controversy, Archbishop Cottrell was candid that where the Church had ended up on the problems was not where he had hoped to be three years ago, when the Prayers of Love and Faith had first been dropped at the Synod (News, 9 February 2023).
While the bishops were sorry for disappointing many on each side, the fact of their division, and the legal and theological advice received, had meant that that they had not “been in a position to find further ways forward that honour the consciences of those that arrive at different conclusions”, he said.
There had been “failures of process”, excessive ambiguity, and an excessive amount of concentrate on striking “deals” between different factions, Archbishop Cottrell said. But through this failure, he believed that the Church was now higher placed to have fruitful conversations via the brand new working groups.
“There is hurt on all sides, however the Bible tells us when one among us is hurting, all of us hurt. Let us proceed to achieve out to at least one one other and pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us in all truth,” he concluded.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Archbishop of York opens the discussion on LLF on Thursday afternoon
The pain and betrayal felt by many LGBTQ Christians and their supporters was evident throughout the controversy. Many members spoke of their anguish at how hopes of more lasting reform had been steadily dashed over the past three years.
The Revd Jody Stowell (London) spoke for a lot of when she lamented how the C of E had not found a approach to unequivocally welcome and honour LGBTQ Christians, despite years and years of LLF. But she would reluctantly vote for the bishops’ motion as “the least bad option”.
The Archdeacon of Bolton and Salford, Dr Rachel Mann (Manchester), felt similarly, and was almost “embarrassed” that just about a decade of conversation under the LLF banner had ended with such a meagre motion. “Woe to us if in ten years we’re still talking and arguing,” she warned.
In an impassioned speech, the Revd Charlie Baczyk-Bell (London) said that “many gay people will likely be leaving [the Church] quietly” and denounced the “facetious facade” that LLF had develop into. “We queer people have been brutalised through this campaign of intimidation. We have been made bargaining chips,” he said.
Yet, the Revd Kate Massey (Coventry) said that her LGBTQIA+ friends were still prepared to present the Church one other probability, despite the previous few years having “broken” them.
Canon Stuart Cradduck (Lincoln) sought through an amendment to increase the lifetime of LLF, arguing that to finish the project now would send a “harmful signal” to LGBTQ folks that a time of listening and learning had ended.
Others sought through amendments to re-open the difficulty of standalone blessings, which the bishops had shut down on the premise that these required full synodical authorisation and a two-thirds majority vote.
This was resisted by other members, nonetheless, who hailed the commitment to due process from the House of Bishops, and cautioned against attempting to force the difficulty over again.
Some speakers rejected the careful framing by Archbishop Cottrell that there was hurt on each side of the controversy. Simon Friend (Exeter) argued that that the lived experiences of LGBTQ Christians and the discomfort of those conservatives who feared change couldn’t be the identical.
There were also many contributions from those against PLF, who mostly didn’t see the bishops’ motion as a victory, either.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Synod take heed to the controversy on the closure of LLF
Laura Oliver (Blackburn) complained that her perspective, as an LGBTQ one who held onto traditional teaching on marriage and sex, had been too often absent from the LLF process. “My efforts to live a life as a treasured child of God, rejoicing in a lifetime of singleness as modelled by Jesus himself, have been undermined and diminished,” she said.
Dr Ros Clarke (Lichfield) attempted to amend the motion to make the House of Bishops apologise for not heeding legal advice. Until there was some “confession and repentance”, she said, the hierarchy couldn’t lead the Church into “forgiveness and reconciliation”.
Others questioned why the Church was about to embark on one other round of divisive discussions on sexuality via the brand new working groups, when this might produce the “same bitter fruit” because the LLF project.
The Revd Mike Smith (Chester) said that LLF needed to be stopped before it was reborn under a recent acronym which might resume the “interminable escalator” and further poison relationships throughout the Church.
But the bishops were mostly united of their determination to each turn the page on LLF, and to proceed conversations under recent auspices.
The Bishop of Sherborne, the Rt Revd Karen Gorham, said that it was tempting to think that the work could come to an end and the Church could close its eyes to the people around it. But Christians were still called to embrace the stranger and the marginalised, she said, and subsequently that they had to “keep the work alive” through the brand new working groups.
Although “removed from perfect”, the bishops’ way forward was the one approach to prevent either faction losing faith in the method and getting the Church mired in stagnation and frustration, the Bishop of Birmingham, the Rt Revd Michael Volland, argued.
The Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, denied claims that the bishops had been blocking progress and offering “stones as an alternative of bread”. While there have been deep disagreements, there was also broad consensus against “anything that may undermine our ecclesiology of our Anglican identity”, she said, referring to renewed calls from some conservatives for more everlasting and separate provision.
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, who had led the LLF process before stepping down last June (News, 6 June 2025), apologised for his “mistakes” during his time within the role, but insisted that LLF had not been “a waste of time of cash”. Instead, it had taught the Church what it meant to be the Church, he said, and the way to live well despite division.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesSynod members vote on the ultimate motion, unamended
Towards the close of the controversy, the Archbishop of Canterbury rose to praise the Synod for his or her constructive engagement in LLF over a few years, despite it being a wounding experience for a lot of.
The motion, she believed, created a “sensible way forward to the following steps”, and he or she closed by urging the Synod to not lose hope that God could make a way forward. “Hope is a muscle that we want to flex,” she said — hope, not within the Church, but in God.
When the unamended motion was finally put to the vote, it passed in all three Houses (unanimously within the bishops and with strong majorities in each the clergy and laity). The final vote was Bishops, 34-0 with two recorded abstentions; Clergy, 109-62 with ten recorded abstentions; and Laity, 109-70 with nine recorded abstentions.
That this Synod:
a) recognise and lament the distress and pain many have suffered in the course of the LLF process, especially LGBTQI+ people;
b) affirm that the LLF Programme and all work initiated by the February 2023 LLF Motion and subsequent LLF Motions will conclude by July 2026;
c) thank the LLF Working Groups for his or her committed and dear work, which is able to now draw to a detailed with the conclusion of this synodical process;
d) commend the House of Bishops in establishing the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group and Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group for continuing work.
, exploring provisions for LGBTQ+ people within the Church of England, was formally drawn to a...){kind=link}