THE delay in the timetable to complete the Living in Love and Faith process (LLF) dominated a brief discussion at the General Synod on the Thursday morning.
The LLF team apologised to members that final votes on the outstanding items would not be coming to July’s group of sessions as planned, but would now most probably have to wait until November, or even next February.
A presentation on progress made was followed by questions 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 will never 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 each person chooses their own truth?” He wanted to present a possible way to hold things together, but it began with imagination, not detail, he said.
The proposals for shared episcopacy would allow congregations to remain in a relationship even when they could not agree to disagree. “It may be that this is also enough to allow clergy to enter same-sex civil marriages,” but more theological work was needed to confirm that; and so the Synod would not be asked to vote on anything concrete yet. He apologised for the delay, but insisted that it would be wrong 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 might have presumed that the 470-page LLF book would conclude all the theological work needed, but 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 issues of ecclesiology and unity, and offered three different types of disagreement: apostolic, ecclesial, and sub-ecclesial. Part of the problem was that each faction disagreed about what type 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, could not collaborate with the whole body. Finally, it dived into distinctions between holy matrimony and civil marriage, exploring the relationship between church doctrine and civil marriage, and concluded that it was unlikely that the two 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 did not 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 be changed, and whether same-sex marriage could be included in 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 understand the rationale. The Alliance did not think it went far enough, and he asked when the working group “would be allowed” to come to the conclusion that what was on offer was “not fit for purpose”.
Professor Helen King (Oxford) asked about the future plans for membership of the working groups, and representation of different views on them.
The Revd Dr Charlie Bell (Southwark) said that communications about LLF seemed now to focus on those who objected to the introduction of the material, and asked when the focus would return to those for whom it had initially been launched to include. In particular, he highlighted LGBTQ+ people whose “vocations are being crushed by the indecision of those in 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 task of looking at 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 would not know the full outcome of it. “Some of this will have to be tried out.”
Dr Nick Shepherd, the programme director for LLF, said that working groups would retain their membership in the coming months, if current members would like to continue. He then answered Dr Bell’s question, saying that the team had boosted its communications team, and wanted to become more proactive in telling stories about LLF and sharing what churches were doing within 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 individuals and not to say anything about the couple’s relationship. Given that, why did so much of the pastoral guidance address couples, not individuals?
The Revd Dr Andrew Atherstone (Oxford) said that he could not find anything in the canons which gave the House of Bishops the authority to decide on the definition and content of doctrine.
Canon Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) said that she had lost count of how many weddings she had conducted over the years, including one where the couple had arrived wearing Goth clothing. She asked what the contextual questions about the aesthetics of bespoke PLF services were, and how they would be considered “responsibly”.
The Bishop of Taunton, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley (Southern Suffragans), who chaired a PLF working group, replied that people would come forward for the PLF as a couple wishing to have their love expressed, and to know God’s blessings on them as individuals. “We’ve sought to offer advice looking at 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 all bishops shared the responsibility for defending the teaching of the Church, and interpreting it and “declaring it afresh” for each generation. There were questions that the FAOC was wrestling with — which Dr Atherstone must know, as a member of that body — in relation to change and development in doctrine.
Dr Shepherd said the guidance had tried to not be prescriptive about “dress codes”, and instead focus on principles. Some members of the working groups would have preferred more prescriptive guidance, he conceded.
The Revd Dr Casey Strine, the new theological adviser to the House of Bishops, said that a question being explored was to what extent guidance could be given on topics such as appropriate attire at a wedding or service or blessing.
Philip Baldwin (London) asked for reassurance that LLF would come back to the Synod no later than February 2026, so that it wasn’t delayed until the next quinquennium. Lots of LGBTQ+ people were waiting, he said.
The Revd Paul Langham (Bristol) asked what resources could be provided to Synod members on what should happen in certain scenarios, such as when a PCC and incumbent disagreed about the use of the PLF.
Dr Gill Frigerio (Coventry) asked for more information about the discussions that would take place in diocesan synods. For many people, these discussions would be daunting and potentially harmful, she said.
Bishop Snow told Mr Baldwin that giving “cast-iron guarantees” was foolish, and so he could promise only to try to bring something back to the Synod “by the latest at February 2026”. It was not within his power to control the timetable.
Dr Shepherd said that the LLF team planned soon to provide resources for diocesan synods to help them to explain the material and the journey to PLF bespoke services, plus DEM. There would also be updates more frequently, he said, as feedback from dioceses and their synods came in over the rest of 2025.
Bishop Worsley said that multi-parish benefices had been in the discussions in her working group, including real-life examples of the kind of conversations that needed to take place in team ministries. “We would also encourage teams to use 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 rather than bishops should be published.
The Revd Anna de Castro (Sheffield) asked what it would take for the House of Bishops to conclude that the only 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 might be followed in the future, but at the moment they were following a B5 process.
Dr Shepherd said that there was a separate working group looking at the issue of vocations, but that it was dependent on the House of Bishops’ making decisions. New guidance would be issued this year, but it would be interim guidance, and subject to further consideration, he suggested.
Archpriest Stephen Platt (Russian Orthodox Church) said that the beginning of the LLF process had included an intense engagement with ecumenical partners, and asked whether there was intention to resume this, as the focus now turned to theological study and episcopal challenges.
Mary Durlacher (Chelmsford) expressed thanks that the theological work was at the forefront, but said that she felt that it was “harder by the day” to work out the cultural context in which this work was being done. There were “red lines” marking the extent to which Christian faith could be reconciled with currents in the wider culture.
Sandra Turner’s (Chelmsford) parish already had oversight from the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, but this was patchy nationally, as it depended on the consent of the diocesan bishop. What confidence could she be given that DEM would work better and avoid the “diocesan postcode lottery”?
Dr Innes said that the FAOC’s work on episcopacy involved thinking about ecumenical relations. Consultation with ecumenical partners would take place.
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 “constantly thinking about the interface” of culture and the gospel. “We are attentive to it,” she said.
Bishop Snow said that there would be a national framework for regional groupings of bishops to then decide how to offer provision locally. This was not the final product, and more work was required, including consultation now with dioceses. He assured members that this consultation would be genuine and meaningful, and not simply a fig leaf.
Canon Andy Salmon (Manchester) said that most people thought that more progress would have been made. What could the “ordinary punters” do to help speed up the process, he asked.
The Revd Charlotte Cook (Archbishops’ Council) asked Bishop Snow: “What is it that we can be praying for, for you and your team?”
Bishop Snow said that there would not be a “simple technical fix that can suddenly make everything right”. This was part of learning how to witness to a wider world where there were differences as well. The Synod must abandon any hope that they could somehow find a simple 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”.
