There used to be bumper stickers with the message, ‘Jesus is coming – look busy!’ Leaving aside the dodginess of that idea – and here I’d mention the Archbishop of York’s counter-argument, Do Nothing to Change Your Life: Discovering What Happens When You Stop – it does look like the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process is getting very ‘busy’. Last time I blogged here I was speculating about what I assumed was the imminent announcement of the membership of the three ‘not (just) the usual suspects’ groups to which, back in March, members of Synod were invited to offer their time. In fact, it turns out that those groups are still not finalised. At today’s stakeholder meetings we were told that this may happen at the end of next week, which will be after the first meeting of each group. 

So yes, that’s why I’m writing: because we’ve had some more stakeholder meetings. This time by zoom – cheaper, and more convenient, especially for those who have the temerity not to live within an hour of London. This time, no bishops present, just those of us representing various inclusive groups, and the two very busy and very helpful staff members of the Living in Love and Faith team. 

Why no bishops, I asked in the meeting I attended, bearing in mind that it’s the House of Bishops which has to make the decisions on what to bring to General Synod? Of course the staff will update them, but being in the room with us has a very different vibe. Did any bishops meet with the conservative stakeholders? No idea. For today’s meetings (three that I know about, with inclusive groups) the answer was that today clashed with some meeting of the archbishops with all diocesan bishops. When I was told that, I thought it was weird – surely such a meeting would already be in the diary before this one was fixed? Thinking about it, maybe not. I have no idea whether archbishops and diocesans meet regularly, but it is possible that this is also related to the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) and to the question of the place of episcopal conscience, which is something we were told today is being considered by a Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) subgroup. Or then again, maybe it isn’t anything to do with that. As is so often the case, we don’t know and nobody is telling us.

Going back to December, published notes from the House of Bishops – we don’t get those very often! – tell us that they set up ‘a small working group’ to develop ideas around how the bishops could function when they don’t agree what ‘pastoral reassurance/ formal structural pastoral provision’ should look like. Or, to put it in simpler terms, what sort of arrangements would be enough to keep within the fold most of those who don’t think the Church of England should either bless same-sex relationships in ‘stand-alone services’, or allow clergy and lay leaders to be in same-sex civil marriages. That was the only time we’ve heard anything about such a working group. What did it do? Anything?

Now, we are still waiting for information on those three new ‘not (just) the usual suspects’ groups who’ll consider the same questions as usual, but hopefully this time more focused on process. We heard new information today: that the membership of each will include some representative/s from FAOC, and also that the other members won’t just be from Synod. That seems rather odd; why not? All varieties of the Church of England are represented at Synod so why bring in people who are not members? If you are going to do so, then why not have an open call for such people (there wasn’t one)? Ours not to reason why. There was also a suggestion that the full membership of the groups will not be published. Why not?

However, at the same time, as we heard in today’s stakeholder meetings, FAOC is running four of its own groups, around unity and the nature of the Church, what ‘Holy matrimony’ and ‘marriage’ mean (this one has been going round and round for a while now), clergy in same-sex marriages, and the conscience of bishops (this one is about whether some bishops could make their diocese a no-go area). None of those are new questions. FAOC is, to put it politely, not known for its speed. I’m not even sure why some theological questions are put to FAOC and others aren’t, or who decides to call them in. Its members are appointed by the archbishops, but who knows how that works? We were assured that the documents produced by these FAOC groups don’t need to go back to the full committee for approval so there won’t be delays.

What else? The main information-sharing was around the processes envisaged from now until February 2025, when there will be ‘Further discussion on proposal seeking approval of any legislative processes’. The three slides shared had a lot of coloured boxes, and a lot of words. They will soon be shared with us so we can pass them on.* We commented on the procedure here: clearly they weren’t created overnight, so why couldn’t they be shared in advance to give everyone a fair chance of getting their heads around it all? We heard that the new Programme Board only met on Monday so they couldn’t be shared until after that; but hello, it’s Wednesday.

The overall impression from the coloured boxes is of busy-ness; lots of different groups having to complete their part of the process to pass it on to the next group. The word ‘indicative’ features heavily. We know the bishops have been having ‘indicative votes’ at their meetings for a while now, to get a sense of how they divide but without it being binding in any way.

Having seen a fair number of earlier versions of a timetable like this, I am well aware of how easy it is for the timing to slip. Where the current timetable differs from other recent versions is in the incorporation of the FAOC groups; an extra area of possible slippage. FAOC’s involvement was mentioned in the documents we saw in February, although not in the Implementation Plan on a Page, in GS2346, p.20. But things have moved on from these documents in many areas, not least the abandoning of the ‘two Lead Bishops’ model in favour of a team with a single ‘Lead Bishop’.

Let’s just remind ourselves of what is currently on the table: a proposal for stand-alone services of blessing for same-sex couples (it is already possible to have these in an existing service) and ending the refusal to allow people in same-sex marriages to be ordained, or clergy in same-sex marriages to have licences. Those who disagree think that there is some way that the Church of England can be divided so that they feel insulated from all of this, which they consider to be sinful. But how would that work? This is really what the next months are about. The aim, we were told today, is ‘a workable solution with maximal support’.

Next stage? Apparently another set of stakeholder meetings in May, a month which also features a House of Bishops meeting (18 May). In June, a College of Bishops meeting (12 June). And Synod in July. More groups, more votes. I know I’m not alone in feeling very, very tired. But the busy-ness getting to a solution is necessary for everyone within the Church of England, and in particular for those most directly affected.

*addendum: these are now out there in the public domain, with a comment to the effect that things change and so they may not be correct for much longer