Synod At Home (3) – Long Monday

Posted on July 13, 2026 by fluff35

Back in February, I submitted a Private Member’s Motion (a PMM):

‘That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.’

Any member of Synod can submit a PMM and mine was aimed at ending this very bruising Synod quinquennium with a positive pastoral statement about the invaluable but apparently unvalued contribution of LBGTQIA+ people to the Church. All those PMMs which had reached the threshold of 100 votes have been scheduled at this July Synod, so this morning mine was debated.

Back when I first tabled the motion, there was a certain amount of conservative kerfuffle online. They didn’t like the word ‘intimate’. I observe that we seem to be hung up on ‘intimacy’. We witnessed an example of this during Synod Questions on Friday. Question 14 was from Mrs Anna de Castro (Sheffield) asking the Chair of the Faith and Order Commission: ‘In the context of the Living in Love and Faith process, what meaning has FAOC given to the word “intimate”?’ And the response she was given? That “FAOC has not found it necessary to explore the meaning of intimate and to provide a more technical definition to the word than offered by its common usage.”

Common usage, eh? My first thought was the usage in “an intimate little Italian restaurant”. During a catch-up on the tennis, I saw a mixed doubles match in which the commentator assured us that someone on the other side of the net “knows both players intimately”. And then there’s “intimate care” which is all about toilets and continence.

Yet in these endless debates, some members of Synod seem to think “intimate” is all about bodies and pleasure. If you say “sexually intimate”, maybe that’s a reasonable interpretation. But I didn’t: just look at the words of my motion. That didn’t stop conservatives, both before today and during the debate on the PMM, telling me that I meant it. No. In the supporting paper which I was asked to put in before Synod met, I tried to make this clear; I wrote that “if we reduce intimacy to bodies, and indeed to specific acts of those bodies, we are not doing justice to the depth of our need for trust and closeness. ‘Intimate’ is used in this motion to recognise that deep, devoted, passionate relationships of many kinds exist, and always have existed, and that includes a range of types of physical contact. In a response to another Synod question (July 2023 Synod Q72), the then-Bishop of London helpfully noted that ‘LLF has always tried to recognise that the expression of sexual intimacy between two people cannot be reduced to a small set of defined actions.’”

My motion was deliberately short. Of course “no fundamental objections” was a reference to the 1975 motion which began the journey towards women priests. Looking at my motion, conservatives were complaining that they did have objections. But of course, some people did in 1975 too; and they simply voted against. However, I heard the concern, and in the time between submitting the motion and coming to the debate, several of us worked on trying to address it. Should we spell out the presence in the church of other views? By the time amendments had to be put in, we had come up with an amended form of the motion which we thought addressed this, and more. So that was submitted by Chris Dalliston, the Dean of Peterborough, appearing as item 54 on the agenda:

That this Synod:

(a) affirms that all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ;

(b) delights in the lives and ministries of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England;

(c) recognises a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England, on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, and;

(d) recognises that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry.

So, basic pastoral message, plus recognition that there are other views within the C of E.

As I was not able to be in York, the motion was moved by Professor Muriel Robinson, who opened by talking about her friends David and Stuart, who have been together since theological college. In their early stages of ministry there was no problem in accepting their relationship, but as they were increasingly badly treated both left ministry, and one gave up on faith. This is a very sad story, and it is not uncommon. Why does the church do this to people?

The chair of the debate chose to hear at an early stage from proposers of amendments to give us a sense of what they were about. The first of those, item 53, was from the Chair of the House of Laity, Jamie Harrison. It is quite long so I shall just summarise it here. He aimed to remove all the pastoral focus of the original motion, making it instead into a brief statement of where we are now; with the Prayers of Love and Faith permitted in existing services and… ah, that’s the problem. There’s nothing else to put on that list. Because nothing else has happened in the direction of welcoming LGBTQIA+ people in the C of E. So the rest of the motion restated that “sexual intimacy” properly belongs within marriage – which was odd as that moves us into opposite-sex relationships, which were not within the scope of my motion. The amendment also tried to reduce the impact of “no fundamental objections” by claiming that there are also “many” people who aren’t certain what they think, and others who think same-sex relationships “run counter to the message of scripture and the Christian tradition”. It ended by mentioning the new Working Group for which we voted in February (although it hasn’t started meeting yet as so far it has only got a chair; no members). 

There were many excellent speeches, including Adam Kendry, an armed forces rep, noting that it is now 26 years since the armed forces got their act together on accepting lesbian and gay people; Anna Norman-Walker, pointing out that the motion was not about liturgy and doctrine, just about the ordinary people in our parishes; Bishop Nick Chamberlain, the only out gay bishop, who as an acting bishop doesn’t have a vote in Synod, pointing out just how bad the times are for LGBTQIA+ people; Graham Kirk-Spriggs, a vicar, on his experience as the only gay person in the room being told “fornicators” won’t inherit the kingdom of God; Martin Auton-Lloyd noted that, in his deanery, there are more clergy in civil partnerships than in marriage. A key theme was how lesbian and gay clergy and lay people ask not for change but simply for recognition of their lives and ministries; as Graham put it, where is he, a lifelong Anglican affirmed? Why is he not included?

There were some rather odd speeches from conservatives, worrying about whether “intimacy” is an ambiguous word (read my supporting paper…); holding up the “is it a duck? is it a rabbit?” optical illusion (don’t ask; but there is an excellent discussion of its use in the debate this morning here); assuming sexual and romantic are the same thing; conjuring up the image of the Church as the Bride of Christ but with a muddy dress (?); and a speech by a traditionalist young woman who is certain that she should not enter a same-sex relationship. That’s, of course, up to her; it doesn’t help those who have found security and growth in such a relationship. 

The voting was complicated. When Jamie Harrison’s amendment (item 53) came to the vote, it was defeated. There was a Vote by Houses (meaning that something has to pass in all three of them) which went:

Bishops 17 in favour, 7 against, 6 abstentions

Clergy 78 in favour, 90 against, 4 abstentions

Laity 88 in favour, 93 against, 1 abstention

So it failed in two houses and thus failed overall. 

When Chris Dalliston’s amendment (item 54) was voted on, however, it passed in all three houses:

Bishops 12 in favour, 8 against, 8 abstentions

Clergy 100 in favour, 68 against, 4 abstentions

Laity 102 in favour, 76 against, 4 abstentions.

Bearing in mind that this amendment entirely replaced my original short motion, you’d perhaps think that the voting on it would be replicated when we went on to vote on ‘the motion as amended’; after all, this had exactly the same words! 

No.

On the final, amended, motion, we voted: 

Bishops 11 in favour, 14 against, 4 abstentions


Clergy 93 in favour, 79 against, 0 abstentions

Laity 101 in favour, 83 against, 0 abstentions.

Assuming that there were roughly the same people in the room or on zoom, some of the clergy seem to have decided they were against rather than in favour, but the overall vote result was a pass; however, the bishops changed their votes in a way that led to the motion failing, because of the House of Bishops. This is very baffling and perhaps some time we will find out what was going on.

In the later debate on Trust, Professor Veronica Hope Hailey commented on how very very odd the C of E is, although what she was thinking about were its structures at national and diocesan level alongside its reliance on volunteers at parish level. She observed that it’s not clear who is in charge; bishops claim that they only have soft power but then look at them at a coronation. I’d add, voting by Houses can also show their power. She noted that Synod just goes round in circles; and that’s what we did on my PMM. 

The day ended with Bishop Robert Springett updating us on safeguarding. A key comment was that safety depends on a culture that will not abide theology being used for coercive purposes. He also supported mandatory reporting rather than reliance on the Seal of the Confessional; this was pushed back on by Bishop Philip North. There was a question about what counts as spiritual abuse, which as I heard it came rather close to asking for support for conversion practices; about spiritual direction; about why not all Lessons Learned Reviews are published; and about the training which has to be carried out in parishes to help people to volunteer as parish safeguarding officers.  

Long day, lots to think about; not least that the bishops suddenly felt unable to support saying that “all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ”? I am guessing that this is their problem, as I cannot see that they would fail to agree that we have a range of views in the C of E. What message is this sending to those faithful queer people who are clergy and laity – and bishops! – in the C of E?

Posted in General Synod, Living in Love and Faith, marriage, Safeguarding | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Synod At Home (2) – Sunday into Monday

Posted on July 13, 2026 by fluff35

Sunday at Synod always begins with a communion service from York Minster. Lots of members don’t go, for a variety of reasons, but for me it has been one of the highlights of Synod membership. And I am happy to report that this is one situation in which being online has positive advantages! The livestream from the Minster was excellent. Lots of cameras, meaning there were angles one can never see from a seat in the building. I particularly liked seeing the close-ups of the organist playing, as well as of the preacher (the Archbishop of Canterbury, on what ‘good soil’ means when sowing the gospel) and the president (the Archbishop of York). The birds’ eye views were beautiful. The music was outstanding even by the Minster’s standards. At the end, as the processions left, the camera was facing towards the Great West Door, which suddenly opened letting in a blast of sunlight and a reminder of the greater world in which our church activities are set.

This was appropriate to the work of Synod in the afternoon, which was focused on the global climate emergency. We heard a presentation on a new document offering a theology of the environment, Hope for all Creation. Then there was the final approval stage of the Festival of Creation in Christ (first Sunday in September) and Commemoration of the 21 Martyrs of Libya (15 February); I discussed these, which are part of synching our calendar with those of other Christian churches, at an earlier stage of the progress of this new liturgy through Synod. The title of the first one has changed.

And then another presentation, on the Route Map to Net Zero Carbon for the C of E by 2030, agreed in 2022. You may have been wondering how this is getting on. It is now running to 2034 and an extra £40 million has been allocated for that period, and more money for the next two funding periods. Some of this funding is from government and local communities: our funding attracts outside funders. The money is used to fund energy audits and to support capital works projects (air source heat pumps, solar panels, etc) particularly in struggling parishes. We heard that the C of E has 30,000 buildings needing attention: churches, cathedrals, schools and clergy housing. A third of churches are now part of the Eco Church initiative. Reduction in emissions is about 3.7% each year (compare the National Trust which is aiming for 5%). And a key point made in the presentation and in the speeches from the floor was that saving money on fuel use releases money for mission.

We reconvened after supper for the debate on Palestine. This was based on a motion brought by the Carlisle Diocesan Synod back in 2021, but which the Business Committee has only now managed to put on the agenda. The motion laments the loss of lives on both sides and calls for solidarity with Palestinian Christians in non-violent resistance and for peace for all people of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. We heard how our silence is damaging to the Palestinian church. The motion asks us to challenge both anti-semitism and anti-Muslim hatred, and to review our investment policies as a church now that the International Court of Justice has declared occupation of Palestinian territory illegal.

You could tell this was a very important and challenging motion because the Archbishop of Canterbury was called to speak first. There were lots of amendments which took us up to the time scheduled to end for the evening: 21.45. After some agenda-juggling, this morning (Monday) the Business Committee found space to continue the debate at 9.00, with the Archbishop of York as the first speaker. Both archbishops, like many others who spoke, have visited the Holy Land and can speak with authority.

Stewart Fyfe, who moved the motion, in summing up the debate, said that frightened Christians in Palestine are wondering whether the world still sees them. The motion as amended passed after a counted vote by Houses (which means that the names of who voted which way will eventually be in the public domain). I voted in favour: a very large number abstained. The figures were:

Bishops Yes 25, No 0, Abstentions 5

Clergy Yes 115, No 20, Abstentions 30

Laity Yes 113, No 27, Abstentions 35

Posted in General Synod | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Synod At Home (1)

Posted on July 12, 2026 by fluff35

As I have already said on this blog, I am doing the July 2026 Synod by zoom. This is my first experience of zoom Synod and it’s not easy, despite the very good online access to debates. Even with WhatsApp, I miss the contact with people with whom I’ve been working for five years. But not being there for social time means I have more time to write about what happened at Synod, and I know there are some of you who appreciate that.

First, though, to give you a flavour of what I am doing, here is my approach to being on zoom for the best part of five days. I decided to follow the model which our local Baptist church has used for its group supporting older people; my mum used to attend the group, because it was a good change of scene and, although she wasn’t always entirely enthusiastic about the content, one thing which she enjoyed very much was the annual ‘Holiday At Home’ event. This took place over a few days, with a theme. So, if the venue for the ‘Holiday’ was France, you’d turn up every morning and there would be posters of the Eiffel Tower and vineyards on the walls, a quiz on French towns, French-themed food for lunch, a singalong to Frère Jacques… you get the picture. And Eiffel Tower keyrings and macarons in the goodie bags at the end (my mum’s favourite part was always the goodie bag).

So, Synod At Home: cooked breakfast essential – so I fried up some things, outside in the garden. Access to a life-saving ice cream from a vending machine – I managed to find some ice creams in the depressingly thin heatwave pickings at the local supermarket. Excellent range of cold meats and fish and salad at lunch – fridge stocked. I haven’t been able to replicate things like a dodgy smell and/or unidentified insect life in the shower, or finding no hot water in my room, or a very uncomfortable mattress with the odd spring coming out. Nor, more sadly, can I duplicate the tiny desserts in shot glasses, one of York University’s best catering offerings, although I have always found the food very good all round. Nor can I replicate the fringe meetings, over 40 of them, scheduled before breakfast, over lunch and after dinner. I have never been much of a one for the pre-breakfast ones but it’s a pity to miss some of the other items on offer this time. Some offer useful briefings: others introduce members to new things: and others are simply fun. I am sad to miss the one put on by a group of survivors from Newcastle diocese, Jagged Edges, but I have the book that they put together and wrote about it here.

Missing fringes 

That comment about missing fringes doesn’t apply to the one I would most definitely miss, and not just because it’s in that pre-breakfast slot: the one being put on tomorrow (Monday) by Christian Concern, featuring speakers who believe that God has changed their sexual identity (changed towards heterosexuality, naturally: it’s apparently a one-way process). Before Synod started, there was considerable discussion of this event; should it be allowed, particularly bearing in mind that in 2017 Synod passed a motion rejecting conversion practices? Some of our members have been through these. 

Originally there was also going to be a display in addition to the fringe, on a table in the exhibition area. After the matter was raised with the Archbishops, while the fringe remains on the agenda (but with a different title), the display has been banned, although from various WhatsApp groups I saw that a version of this display turned up briefly outside the debating chamber on Friday and some people were shouting about ‘apostate priests’ outside the chamber and ‘stand up for Biblical marriage’ (I assume they don’t mean polygamy?) on Saturday. I’m not sure how that is considered OK.

Relevant to this is a Question I put in during Friday’s Question session. It’s Question 13:

The publication date of the short “resource for churches and local ministry teams” – Lord Teach Us to Pray: Prayer in Pastoral Settings and Guidelines for Good Practice – produced by FAOC, has been delayed several times in the last few years. It is “intended as a resource for churches and local ministry teams”. As praying with others is an area in which good practice urgently needs to be established, how firm is the current publication date of 28 January 2028?

The written response from the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe as Chair of the Faith and Order Commission was:

The publication timeline for Lord Teach Us to Pray has been extended in order to allow for further consultation with people who have lived experience of abuse in a church context. This has indicated the need for some revisions, which are now complete. While the final elements of the publication process lie with Church House Publishing, at present those involved are confident that the publication date will not be delayed any further. 

Which all sounds good; of course the resource needs to draw on those with lived experience of abuse. Once the online system had successfully connected to one of my four mic options (tense aspect of Synod At Home…), I asked a supplementary which referred back to the disputed fringe and display. I pointed out the relevance to this of the issue about how we can pray with one another in a way which avoids coercion, meaning that this delayed book is now even more important. As the revisions are complete, can Church House Publishing be approached to expedite publication? The answer was a statement that it would be published as soon as possible. I do wonder whether that still means January 2028…

Debates so far

Apart from a couple of other supplementary questions, I’ve been silent, although I’ve been present for all the agenda items so far. Doing Synod At Home means I can refill my water bottle, nip to the loo, and immerse my feet in a bowl of cold water whenever I feel like it. Major wins!

After an address from the Archbishop of York summing up what he felt about the last five years of Synod, Friday’s debate on affirming neurodiversity was excellent, with people sharing their experiences and those of their family members. The motion asks for dioceses to have neurodiversity champions, and for all of us to help neurodivergent people to flourish in local contexts. We heard about training being led by neurodivergent people; an excellent example of going beyond even ‘Nothing about us without us’.  Everyone who spoke was engaging, including Rebecca Chapman whose neurodivergent son was present in the public gallery, and the Archbishop of Canterbury who spoke about the effect her dyslexia had had on her life (more on that here). Confusing ‘prostate’ and ‘prostrate’ was not even the half of it!

I put in to speak on the Communications Private Member’s Motion on Saturday but wasn’t called. The upshot of that debate was to reject the motion, which was going to be the thrust of my speech had it happened; the work on the central website and on A Church Near You (ACNY) has already happened and we don’t need to spend around £70k on another review while changes are about to happen. I had been hoping to say something about ACNY and its potential; for example it has tags for accessible loos, hearing loop, work with children, and use of the Book of Common Prayer, as well as use of the Prayers of Love and Faith – but nothing to indicate whether the parish accepts the full priestly ministry of women. We also had some legislative business, and we saw the new Clergy Conduct Rules through their next stage; replacing the Clergy Discipline Measure, these will triage complaints into grievances/misconduct/serious misconduct. The aim is to make the process more transparent and quicker, recognising that delays are painful for everyone involved. We then had some more tweaks to the election rules before the presentation on Promoting Unity in Our Nation.

The theme was resourcing churches for debates on religion and nationalism and democracy. The focus was on seeking each other’s welfare. I’ll be honest, and I know I am not alone in this among Synod members, I don’t like presentations. And there’s another two scheduled for Sunday. Even without sitting in a hot debating chamber in York (or a hot room at home) for the three hours that the Unity one took, hearing speakers in person or by video and breaking into small groups for discussion doesn’t seem to get us anywhere. Some of the stories we heard were interesting but the overall impression was of being talked at. The supporting paper made good comments about wider social factors leading to division; loss of trust in national institutions (not just the Church) and the decline in local institutions like “working men’s clubs, welfare halls, liberal clubs, trades halls, and so on that gave ordinary people regular contact and reciprocal relationships with their neighbours … The result is that many people now lack what previous generations took for granted: a place outside the home and workplace where they encountered others as equals and learned the ordinary disciplines of shared life — how to speak in a group, listen to disagreement, organise a shared event, make a decision with others.” Good analysis, but then what? There is an official summary of the event here, but as usual I wonder what the value of us sharing stories is, beyond the Synod chamber. I suppose it did at least point us to some resources, among them the excellent Churches Together in England resources, Kingdom Over Nation.

On to Sunday… watch this space. I shall be watching the York Minster service in the morning online, and expect to be blown away – as usual – by the beauty of the music.

Posted in General Synod | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Learning to love and be loved: bishops, bodies and my Private Member’s Motion

Posted on July 4, 2026 by fluff35

I’ve been silent here since the end of May; and in that piece, I commented that “it’s over two months since I last posted here, and readers may be wondering whether I’m still alive”. Now we are in July, regular readers may be asking that question again!

When I wrote that blog post, I was coming out of a month of resting due to pneumonia. I remain impressed by the excellent work by my GP in diagnosing, prescribing and giving me clear orders on what I could and could not do. I described in that piece how I had found myself being elected to the Crown Nominations Commission to find the next bishop of my diocese, and ended with the comment that, because of the requirements of confidentiality imposed by CNC membership, “silence will fall”. The CNC continues its work; we are now at the stage at which each member can mandate one candidate to be considered for the long list, along with a couple of other suggested candidates who will only appear on the long list if the Archbishops think they fit the profile. And I think that’s all I am allowed to say. You can be assured that the standard process is happening and we shortlist in October. 

Acting bishops?

Because of being on General Synod, I know many other people who are involved in the processes to find their own diocese’s next bishop. It does seem extraordinary, with 42 dioceses, just how many of these are in the CNC process at any one time. There’s a handy list maintained by the excellent Peter Owen, here, which shows 10 current vacancies. And, because ‘acting’ bishops, despite carrying the responsibilities of a diocesan bishop while there’s a vacancy, can’t vote in either the House of Bishops or General Synod, this has a knock-on of denying their dioceses full episcopal representation on these bodies, too.

Among the papers issued ahead of the imminent July meeting of Synod is GS Misc 1458, which addresses these points about acting bishops; the paper states that the House of Bishops’ Standing Committee intends to bring draft legislation to the February 2027 meeting of Synod, to enable them to vote. It can’t ‘just happen’; Synod’s not like that, and in this case an Amending Canon needs to be brought. What’s interesting here is that, when we discussed these plans earlier in the year, as the Convocations of Canterbury and of York (technical language for Synod’s elected clergy meeting according to their Province) and as the House of Laity, voting was close. For example, in the Convocation of York, there were 21 in favour of change, 20 against, 2 abstentions. What’s the objection? I don’t have any objection to dioceses in vacancy still having full episcopal representation, and I didn’t hear anything persuasive on the ‘against’ side in that House of Laity meeting, so I am not the best person to ask. Meanwhile, for July Synod, once again, we’ll have acting bishops present who can speak but not vote – including Bishop Gavin, acting during the Oxford vacancy.

Bodies

Which brings me back to the CNC. The Oxford ‘diocesan 6’ met for a getting-to-know-each-other lunch at the start of June. As I did the short walk home, my hip – a body part that has previously never malfunctioned – felt rather stiff and sort of grating. I continued my normal day, and my normal 8000 or so steps, hoping the hip would move more easily with a bit of exercise. But that night, I had the most appalling pain. I didn’t sleep, and first thing in the morning had no option but to phone 111. It was a weekend, so 111 sent me to the out-of-hours service at a local community hospital, and the doctor there sent me to A&E for an X-ray. Nothing was found. The A&E doctor said it was a sprained hip, which seemed an odd diagnosis as I had done nothing to it; no bangs, falls, twists… By the Monday, still in agony that was untouched by regular painkillers, I saw a GP who immediately put me on opioids and said an MRI was needed.

Two weeks on from that, and doing better on the strong pain relief, I saw an orthopaedic specialist who put me on crutches and fixed up an MRI, which went on to show a significant amount of fluid in the joint. Blood tests came back fine, so now I am waiting to see a rheumatologist to discuss what is going on here. The appointment is for the last day of Synod. I am certainly not risking being delayed in travel back from York and missing this precious appointment, but in any case I know that I can’t possibly cope with the walking or the sitting at York, so for the first time I shall attend Synod by zoom.

On to July Synod

So far – and the run-up to each Synod is a long one – it feels like Synod as usual; assorted zooms, giving and receiving briefings. But it’s not really ‘as usual’ because this time I am bringing a Private Member’s Motion (PMM): That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship. As soon as the wording of this was published, it became the topic for several blog posts by conservative individuals and groups. Some compared it with the Higton motion of 1987; I was on Synod for that debate, and have written about it here, as well as commissioning a piece from another then-member of Synod, Terry Louden, which you can read here and which describes the atmosphere of the time as having “the air of a witch-hunt”. What ended up going through in 1987 was later described by Rowan Williams as “a shabby compromise”; I rather hope that we can do better than that on 13 July. 

In the various critiques of my motion, I had various requests to spell out what I meant by “intimate” or whether the words “can be” were a hint that some sorts of intimacy were OK and others weren’t. While I was not going to engage with these voices, as it would mean having the debate a month before Synod is scheduled to engage in it, it was useful to see what people were talking about. In the supporting paper I submitted as part of the process of bringing a PMM, GS 2455A, I concentrated on this motion as a pastoral statement that offers “an opportunity to acknowledge the debt we owe to so many of our sisters and brothers by recognising them as disciples of Christ who offer faithful service in parishes and in the running of our national Church, and who speak out for Christ in the world.” Because if we don’t think partnered lesbian and gay people are Christian disciples, just what are we saying?

It doesn’t take much effort to realise that the motion echoes the language of the debates on the ordination of women, with the 1975 “no fundamental objection” motion on women as priests. I was surprised that some conservatives immediately resisted my wording on the grounds that they do object, because, of course, if you think that there is a fundamental objection, you just vote against – as happened in 1975. Synod can say “no fundamental objection” as a majority statement. I believe that we should have started the Living in Love and Faith process with a similar, general motion on the principle. If the majority view is that Christians can’t be in committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, then can we at least be honest about that? 

Ah yes, “intimate”. Conservatives are uneasy with my use of that word. Remember this is the Church of England, where for clergy same-sex civil partnerships are fine (unless you are being considered as a bishop, although in Southwark diocese their Statement of Needs – the view of the diocese on what they are like and what they are looking for in a new bishop – includes encouragement for LGBT+ priests “in a same-sex relationship or civil partnership” to apply). However, clergy in same-sex civil marriages are not officially able to apply for other posts, based on some idea that the civil partnerships don’t include ‘sex’ (whatever is meant by that) and civil marriages do. My supporting paper addresses our understandable reluctance to name body parts; in my academic life I strongly support teaching children the names of their parts and using these rather than family euphemisms which can be unhelpful if there is a case of abuse, as well as in seeking medical advice, so it’s always a bit weird entering the C of E bubble in which even “down there” is considered rather risqué.  In the supporting paper, I quote the helpful response of Archbishop Sarah to a Synod question three years ago, referring to the Living in Love and Faith programme: “LLF has always tried to recognise that the expression of sexual intimacy between two people cannot be reduced to a small set of defined actions.” That’s right: intimacy means different things to different people and it involves far more than our body parts. The generative and the erotic are not necessarily the same thing. Think not only of our passions and our feelings, but also of the intimate care lovingly given when one person is sick or even dying, and their partner cares for them. 

Because I shall be taking part in Synod online, it won’t be me who presents the motion. But now that the supporting paper and  the formal response to it have both been published, I’m perfectly happy to explain more of the carefully-chosen wording used. For example, “can”, in “can be entirely compatible”, because just as in some opposite-sex relationships there can be damaging, abusive power dynamics going on in a committed same-sex relationship. Or, to put it another way, some gay people can behave as badly as some straight people. I am less willing to engage with those who offer a series of “what abouts” – what about incest, what about throuples, that sort of thing. It’s amazing what some people think is relevant to a very simple motion, and I’d point them to the end of my supporting document where I quote the LLF book, which asks us to consider the picture “of two people taking a lifelong journey on which they learn to love and be loved, and in the process learn more of God’s love”. That’s what it’s all about.

Posted in Crown Nominations Commission, General Synod, Living in Love and Faith | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Going quiet: working towards a new bishop

Posted on May 24, 2026 by fluff35

I’m writing this after chatting with some our congregation after the service this morning and finding out that there’s much curiosity but very little knowledge about how we appoint bishops. As our bishop’s farewell service is on 31 May I anticipate more questions will come up about that process, so thought I’d preempt some of those here.

But first: it’s over two months since I last posted here, and readers may be wondering whether I am still alive. Well, that’s a good question. After the February General Synod, I had a meeting of Ministry Development Board (I was elected from Synod to this) and then immediately travelled up to Edinburgh to the Royal College of Physicians (RCPE) to speak at the launch of their new exhibition, “Rag” (full talk here, starting 8 minutes in; text summary here). I always like doing events with the RCPE, not least because one gets to talk to all sorts of doctors and to learn lots of things which are very useful for a historian of the body. Indeed, in my talk I asked if anyone in the audience was working on a particular topic, and someone who was doing just that came up for a chat afterwards!

While I was away, I had an irritating sore throat of the kind which felt like it would develop into a cold, or maybe laryngitis, but not enough to stop me enjoying the trip and the experience. This sore throat, however, went nowhere.

But a week or so after that, I developed an increasingly annoying cough. I started wondering if this was bronchitis. The NHS website told me that I wouldn’t be prescribed antibiotics until I’d had the symptoms for a couple of weeks, but I felt somehow uneasy, so went to my GP. He listened to my lungs, heard ‘coarse crepitations’; as when talking to the RCPE, I learn new things by going to the GP. He told me this was borderline pneumonia; that I had a tiny bit of wiggle room before taking antibiotics; but that he recommended hitting the drugs as a matter of urgency. Meanwhile, total rest for 4-6 weeks. That’s a long time. And to save you asking, yes, I had the anti-pneumonia jab when it was offered to me, three years ago.

I respect my GP’s knowledge not just of bodies in general, but of my medical history in particular, so I obeyed. Not that I had much choice. I was already feeling really exhausted, so I took the antibiotics, cancelled everything in the calendar, spent 4 weeks sleeping or reading light detective fiction, and recovered. But that was over a month of doing very little.

The one thing I had to do: Vacancy in See Committee

When I say I cancelled ‘everything in the calendar’, there was one exception, and that was the Oxford Vacancy in See Committee (ViSC). This is the group which starts the process of finding a new bishop, and as a member of General Synod I am automatically on this. Because we are a very large diocese, it’s a huge committee – 49 members. When we began to meet, I volunteered for the smaller and – for me – more interesting Statement of Needs subgroup. This is the group that produces a picture of the diocese and a first attempt at thinking about what we are looking for in a new bishop. This meant pretty well weekly meetings for several months, with the draft Statement of Needs going back and forth to the main ViSC and, for some predictable sections, being revised over and over again. We all brought in our particular areas of interest or knowledge, so I was involved in drafting sections including those on education, diversity, human sexuality, the knowledge economy, AI and women’s ministry, but all of us commented on everything. Like the rest of us, I was profoundly grateful to the Diocesan Church House staff who found the figures we needed, as well as to our Chair who held it all together and to the staff member who designed the different pages. The result of our labour is this document; 72 pages, which may well seem like overkill. There came a point at which it was already so long that it seemed churlish not to include a bit more on some topics. The Statement of Needs also incorporates results from another subgroup which was responsible for the consultation in the diocese in general, and reflects the work of a third subgroup which focused on prayer.

Fortunately all of our meetings had a zoom option. Indeed, I had already needed to attend an earlier meeting on zoom from a hotel room, which was difficult as at that one I had been asked to present a paper on one section of the Statement of Needs. It’s challenging doing this without a sense of ‘the room’. The whole process of the ViSC seemed to be done in a rush, with drafts of documents inevitably coming just before a meeting. This is not unique to Oxford. Dioceses are lined up in the queue and the deadlines are fixed centrally. The sheer amount of work needed from those on a ViSC isn’t apparent until the thing starts (be warned, if you are on one!).

And on to the Crown Nominations Commission

The day after my diagnosis, before the antibiotics had been given any sort of a chance, I attended the ViSC remotely for the meeting in which the six diocesan representatives for the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) are elected. You can’t vote unless you are present at the meeting either in person or online. I was feeling very ill, but at least on mute my coughing could not be heard. To my great surprise, I was one of those elected, which meant ‘attending’ the commissioning service which followed the result through my screen and appearing on that screen in the official photo of the event. As a result of this, it all felt rather unreal.

But it is real. So now my diary is taken up with the CNC. Alongside the 6 elected diocesan reps, a CNC has 6 national reps; originally these were elected from General Synod as pairs so that only one of each pair had to attend a particular CNC, but for various reasons those broke down and now some of the remaining national reps have to take part in all the CNCs, and there seem to about 6 CNCs a year. The two archbishops bring the membership up to 14. We are issued with many, many documents, some of them already in the secure online site, and far more to come. I am used to academic job searches where there may be 70 or so applicants for one post, but the amount of paperwork per applicant is far more here. By the time we get to October, when the interviews happen, there will have been many, many days of reading. Because this is not like a secular ‘appointments’ process, but is about ‘discerning’ who is being called to the office of bishop, in the coming week we have the online Discerning Well Together session (I think this was formerly known as anti-bias training) and then the following week the national and diocesan reps meet together for the first time.

The details of a ViSC are confidential; you’ll note that I’ve only shared the information that is in the public domain, in the Statement of Needs or on the diocesan website, and have written about processes common to all dioceses rather than moving into details of who said what in meetings. Whereas the election from ViSC to CNC is done online, CNCs operate with another level of confidentiality, to the point where the eventual votes on which candidate to select as bishop are done by writing on a piece of paper and handing it in. At a General Synod meeting we voted to continue this secrecy within the meetings, acknowledging that this means a person could speak one way in a CNC meeting but then vote in a different way; something which seems very odd to me. On our CNC, we have already signed a data protection and confidentiality agreement. As for the rest of the proceedings, everything is confidential. I understand that it is at the June meeting that we all swear the oath: ‘As a member of the Crown Nominations Commission, I promise, as an obligation of such membership, not to divulge to any outside person information about this Commission’s proceedings, or about any person it has considered for the appointment, or about others who have been the source of its information, neither during my membership nor afterwards. I also undertake not to make copies of any of the papers provided, to delete all digital copies of papers held on various devices, and to return all hard copy papers to the Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments at the end of the Commission’s meeting.’

That’s clear enough: silence will fall.

Posted in Crown Nominations Commission, General Synod | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Five Guiding Principles and two key issues for the Church: recognising the wiggle room

Posted on March 16, 2026 by fluff35

Make no mistake, as the date of Archbishop Sarah Mullally’s enthronement in Canterbury Cathedral draws closer, the world of social media is currently as vile as it can get. Along with the C of E which has discerned her call to this role, she faces a barrage of accusations of heresy and even apostasy. Try defending her, and you just act as a magnet for the hatred. All this is happening over thirty years after women were first ordained to the priesthood, and despite the Five Guiding Principles calling us to “mutual flourishing” and “due respect and canonical obedience” towards those who are “true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy”.

In this blog post, I would like to reflect on the reception of women’s ordained ministry while noting some parallels with where the Church of England is on sexuality after the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) years; a topic which forms the theme of this whole blog. For women’s ordained ministry, we have the Five Guiding Principles (hereafter the 5 GPs), endorsed in 2014 as part of the ‘package’ for the Synodical measure to open episcopal ministry to women, and addressing the variety of differing convictions on this matter, and the key document is the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests. Discussions about women and about sexuality are similar in that they are about bodies, and about who holds the power, as well as being about how we read the Bible. In what follows, I’m going to focus on one of the other official documents about the 5 GPs, to see if and how that helps us when we are thinking about how we deal with difference in the Church of England.

That other official document is one issued four years after the creation of the 5 GPs, partly to offer a resource to those trying to make sense of them to others, such as to potential ordinands. Published by the Archbishops’ Council, it was written by the Faith and Order Commission, and is entitled The Five Guiding Principles: A Resource for Study(hereafter FAOC 2018). This document was also informed by the experience of the Church since 2014, in particular the 2017 Report from the Independent Reviewer which concerned the issues raised by the nomination as bishop of Sheffield of a bishop who does not ordain women. The Independent Reviewer asked FAOC to “examine the theological challenge which [this] has … posed to the 2014 Settlement”.

I do wonder who has read this “resource for study”. But, I believe, FAOC 2018 remains relevant. It is relevant when thinking about the lack of women bishops even now, as well as the microaggressions which women in ministry still endure. It is relevant when thinking about the standing of the 5 GPs; they were issued “without specifying a limit of time”. Does that mean they are with us until Jesus returns? And it is relevant to our current divisions on full inclusion of lesbian and gay people in the Church. Some of the claims of FAOC 2018 – that the 5 GPs are “life-giving” (FAOC 2018), and that they enable “mutual flourishing” in seeking the good of the other – are now very widely challenged. 

Holding the tension

Despite the insistence in the 5 GPs that they should be “held together in tension, rather than being applied selectively”, I am far from being the only person to observe that – like the Five Marks of Mission – it is all too easy to focus on one to the detriment of others. Some people will emphasise GP1 – “the C of E is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open to all, without reference to gender”. Hooray, women priests and bishops. Others will highlight GP4 – “the C of E remains committed to enabling [those who are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests] to flourish within its life and structures”. Hooray, you don’t have to accept the full and unequivocal commitment after all. 

How can those principles be reconciled? Similar questions have been asked for the whole Anglican Communion in the Eames Commission, which followed a resolution of the 1988 Lambeth Conference by trying to combine respecting other Provinces’ decisions without accepting the principles behind these. In the 1997 report of the monitoring group for this Commission’s work,  examples of bad practice mentioned included an Australian case where a man who had been ordained deacon by a male bishop in a service during which a woman was also ordained priest was “conditionally reordained” when he moved to another diocese (paragraph 24). In 5 GPs language, though, would we call that “mutual flourishing”? What does it do to our ecclesiology?

The “tension” (or contradiction) between the GPs was noted even when the then-Bishop of Rochester first introduced them at General Synod (FAOC 2018, p.27). FAOC suggested that the answer on GP4 was that it’s fine to reject women’s ministry because of “theological conviction”, but not because of “personal preference, local custom, or any kind of prejudice” (FAOC 2018, p.28). But how do you prove whether something is misogyny, or a theological conviction? It doesn’t make it any better if, like the Forward in Faith group, you also reject the men who support women’s ordination; that’s just misogyny at one remove. 

The relevance for the current debates on full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people is clear. Here too, are objections based on homophobia or theological conviction? How can you spot the difference? 

The FAOC document notes that “Such respect for the integrity of one another’s theological convictions means that those opposed to the ordination of women should not characterize those in favour as caving in to the fashions of the age, and nor should those in favour stigmatise those opposed as supporters of discrimination and injustice” (p.28). Yet this is precisely what happens now with LGBTQIA+ inclusion: those describing themselves as orthodox accuse those calling themselves inclusive of “caving into the fashions of the age” while the latter accuse the former of “discrimination and injustice”. Interestingly, in a world where binaries are being reasserted in sexuality and gender identity, the 5 GPs speak of “the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion” (GP4). It’s good to see this recognition that “orthodoxy” isn’t either/or, although a spectrum is much more difficult to manage than a simple binary.

Feeling the pain

Where one group thinks the other group is causing harm to people, FAOC 2018 argues, it is fair for this to be stated but their “participation … in the common life of our church” should not be restricted in any way (p.30). All are “loyal Anglicans” (p.31). Easy to say, but what does it mean? What counts as “common life”? Taking part in synodical processes? Access to central funds? Coming together at the altar for Holy Communion? More on that last one shortly.

On women’s ordained ministry, FAOC 2018 notes that the costs of accepting the mutual flourishing on which they insist “may be unevenly distributed and fall more heavily on some for reasons not of their own choosing” (p.37). I’ve been at General Synod when we’ve heard speeches from those who are in pain because their stable same-sex relationship of many decades is not recognised by the Church, and also from same-sex attracted people who insist that to honour such relationships would cause pain to them. Why, when nobody is telling them that they should abandon their chosen celibacy and get married? But the first group cannot follow a sense of call to ministry if they marry their beloved partner: the second can. I would class this as an unequal distribution of pain.

As for reasons “not of their own choosing”? Surely today we realise that people don’t choose to be gay. Frankly, when you look at how gay people are treated, even by the Church, would you ever choose this? False equivalences of pain really don’t help here. And, while straight people may also feel strongly that they are called to celibacy, the conservative position is that lesbian and gay people have no choice but celibacy (other than the concession from the organisation Living Out, that lesbian and gay people can just marry a person of the opposite sex). Shouldn’t celibacy be about making a free choice, rather than having no other options available? 

Getting worse rather than better

FAOC 2018 asked for more theological work on the 5 GPs. Did that happen? Not that I can see, and the effects of this have been felt ever since. In an important paper published in the Winter 2025 edition of Modern Believing, entitled “Mission Creep: The Five Guiding Principles and the Curious Incident of the Vanishing 2020 Statement on Episcopal Consecrations”, Judith Maltby challenged the ongoing lack of theological thinking which has meant that the 5 GPs have “been used to support increasing segregation in sacramental arrangements in the consecration of bishops” (my italics). 

Originally, archbishops who supported women’s ordination to the priesthood were still involved in consecrating new bishops who did not believe that women could be priests. But in the years since 2015 the consecration of such bishops was reduced to a small number (under canon law, the minimum is three) of similarly opposed bishops, in stark contrast to the usual mass of episcopal hands being laid on, or extended towards, the candidate. At the first consecration of a traditional catholic bishop after women had begun to be consecrated, in 2015, the Archbishop of York stepped aside and was not involved at all in the consecration, nor did he preside at the Eucharist. This appears to have been about establishing a pure line of succession, something which a bishop opposed to women’s ordination could point to as a sign of his (and it is of course ‘his’) credentials. 

This situation was strengthened by a Statement made by Archbishop Justin Welby on 15 July 2020. He announced that the norm would shift from an archbishop being the chief consecrator, to having another bishop in this role. This bishop would be one of the three laying on hands, with others present but not doing so. Although it was made in the context of the Covid pandemic, this statement was not presented as a temporary arrangement. Far from it. The Archbishop of Canterbury stated “These new arrangements are made in the light of the pandemic and in awareness of the sad reality that not all in the Church of England agree on issues of ordination, and yet all are committed to upholding the Five Guiding Principles.” There was no attempt at providing a theological rationale for any of this and at some point in 2022 Archbishops again returned to their roles as chief consecrators. 

In her Modern Believing article, Judith Maltby made clear that she was not recommending the abolition of the 5 GPs, but was encouraging more debate on how they are applied, and recognition of the ecclesiological consequences. Nowhere in them is it stated that candidates opposed to the ordination of women should have their own services of consecration; so how has this come into being and what does it mean for our understanding of what it is to be the church?

A new archbishop

An unexpected bonus of FAOC 2018 is that it devotes a page to one bishop describing her own experience of being a woman in a diocese where some find her appointment difficult. And that bishop is none other than Sarah Mullally herself, writing from her time as Bishop of Crediton (FAOC 2018, p.44). She mentions being invited to preach in churches which do not accept the ordination of women, and describes working alongside colleagues from both the Anglo-Catholic and conservative evangelical parts of the church. It all sounds polite enough. But of course that was 2018, before she moved to the London diocese, let alone was chosen for Canterbury. Here, as elsewhere, my impression is that things have become worse, regardless of the 5 GPs.

In recent years we have heard Archbishop Sarah being more open about the microaggressions which she has experienced as an ordained woman in leadership. I was at Synod in February 2025 when, on the podium, she was visibly upset as she recalled these; and I point you to a particularly offensive piece on a website where the (male, of course) author talks about the “rule of women”, accuses her of “ideological delusion” and describes “Anglican apostasy”. Of course, as I’ve described in a much earlier piece on this blog, if women cry it’s supposed to be evidence of their weakness, or of emotional manipulation, but if men cry then it’s shocking and serious and shows they have the maturity to express their feelings. Unless they are gay men, in which case their tears, like those of women, don’t count but are just “sentimentality”.

Three spaces?

FAOC 2018 is also interesting when we consider Bishop Martyn Snow’s advocacy, while LLF lead bishop, for what he called “three spaces” in the C of E around sexuality. FAOC 2018 asked “what it means within a single church to hold distinct sacramental and collegial spaces, in which not all who participate in one can participate in the other in the same way” (p.45). Indeed; and the separation of particular groups from the rest of the Church of England that was institutionalised over women’s ordained ministry has already raised questions which move us even further apart from each other. As Charlie Bell asked in 2020, “if the sacrament of ordination cannot be accepted from a non-traditionalist bishop, can any of the sacraments be received from them?” For some of those in the Church of England, the answer seems to be a “no” which extends to the Eucharist. This is, and has been, very much apparent at General Synod when the Eucharist is celebrated at the start of a day of meetings.

I discussed here what Bishop Martyn proposed in  June 2024: “A space for those who are absolutely committed to the present doctrine of marriage; a space for those who want to see some development of current arrangements; and a large space for those who are undecided, or confused by the whole debate, and see no need to make such a choice at this time. Three spaces in one Church.” What that meant was never clear to me. Were parishes supposed to vote for their preferred space? Why did he assume that the middle space would be so large? What would it mean, in practical terms, to be in one or the other space? How would people move across the lines between them?

Doing “the things of the church apart from each other” is a major concern which has become far more pressing now that it is common for conservatives to identify some bishops as “false teachers”. Back to FAOC 2018, which contains a useful warning: “It may be tempting for the majority to think that, were the minority to leave or disappear, the ‘problem’ posed by their existence would be resolved and all the energy unfortunately required to manage it be liberated for more productive endeavours. It may be tempting for the minority to think that the more they can separate themselves from the majority and insulate themselves from its influence, the more secure their survival will be” (p.41). Tempting, but wrong. Separation is not the solution.

And what next for the 5 GPs? Five is one of those churchy numerals: I’ve already mentioned those Five Marks of Mission. But here’s the punchline: we don’t have to leave it at five. My authority for that is, once again, FAOC. The final question posed to the reader demands our attention as we think about difference: “If you could do so, is there a Sixth Guiding Principle you would now like to add?” (FAOC 2018, p.53). Even in the early days of thinking about them, they were not as set in stone as some people now seem to think. We need to be honest about what doesn’t work; about what has become worse as the years of trying to live with them have rolled on; and about how their legacy hangs over us as we think about LGBTQIA+ inclusion and how to live with difference there. We not only can, but urgently should, be discussing how we can add to the Five something which would make a difference, in the light of what has happened in the decade for which they have now reigned.

Posted in General Synod, Living in Love and Faith | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Consider the lilies: on changing one’s mind

Posted on February 15, 2026 by fluff35

Yes, I know that is a dahlia not a lily. But please bear with me! I’m back from another 5-day Synod. As ever, much as I enjoy seeing familiar faces and learning new things, it’s great to be back. So far I’ve been there in person for every day of every meeting, and each day I go to as much of the discussion as I can, mostly in the debating chamber itself, but sometimes – because it’s hot and stuffy in there, and I don’t feel comfortable in such large groups – watching from the Quiet Room, where the sound and vision feature, but without distraction. And often fringe meetings too, and since I was speaking at one and hosting another that meant two lunchtimes accounted for.

First, a personal comment but one which also relates to people being unaware of what being on Synod entails. I was irritated by comments on another member’s Facebook feed, expressing a lot of crossness at empty seats in the chamber. Those commenting seemed unaware that some people were watching and voting on zoom, or watching from the Quiet Room, but also failed to recognise that those attending in person are human: and there are commonly no scheduled tea/pee breaks from 9-12.45 or from 2-7. The exception was the break in the middle of the long debate on Living in Love and Faith on the Thursday, when tea stations were set up on a long table in the tea room so that we could all drink a paper cup of it before going back in. I do my best, but I need to keep hydrated. And doing my best included being there for the Eucharist first thing on the Wednesday with Archbishop Sarah as celebrant; the empty seats there probably due to some people not respecting her authority, and others regarding her and other bishops as ‘false teachers’. Not much has changed here.

The business this time around covered many areas that affect us all: some progress towards independent safeguarding; the care system; mental health (with more support recommended for clergy on how best to support those with mental health needs); poverty (40 years on from the Faith in the City report); fees for burials (Synod rejecting attempts to raise these very significantly); funding the communities with the lowest incomes; an update on plans to encourage working class people into ministry. 

And, of course, Living in Love and Faith (LLF). On that, as I said when speaking to my amendment, ‘The problem that it is too much of an end for some, and not enough of an end for others’. I was hoping to amend the motion so that the new working group will not have the usual 50:50 pro:anti split, which I believe is a recipe for stagnation, as well as injecting some urgency into their meetings and some ownership by Synod of what they are going to do. Like all other amendments in this five-hour debate, it was rejected because we voted by Houses and the House of Bishops largely followed the Archbishop of York’s call to oppose them all, although my amendment had by far the most support from bishops (12 in favour). Then we voted on the motion as unamended; the most significant part of it being to set up this working group, but a smaller one than in previous attempts. That motion was passed by nearly a 66% majority overall. So although the LLF ‘brand’ has ended, discussions go on. As I said in my speech, ‘a little less conversation and a little more action’ is needed. 

In the rest of this blog post, I’m going to reflect on just one item, and it’s not one which was at the top of my list of debates when I arrived at Synod.

This item was the Worcester Diocesan Synod motion on sustainable church flowers. It was mentioned in the first substantial debate of the session which was, as usual, on the agenda itself, taking off from the report of the Business Committee. Church flowers? Ahead of Synod there had been many ‘No, really??’ comments around Business Committee’s decision to schedule this debate. How could church flowers merit an hour of discussion? As anticipated, a speech was made in the debate on the agenda criticising that decision: I joined in the applause for that speech. Why talk about flowers when Gaza is not on the agenda until July? What does that say about our priorities?

And yet, by the end of the week, I was a convert.

The motion in question was based on the Sustainable Church Flowers movement, and originated in St Bartholomew’s, Harpley, a parish in Worcestershire. The movement has many dimensions. It’s about the environment; avoiding damaging pesticides and unnecessary plastic, and the release of microplastics into the seas. It’s about the planet; the use of water in drought-affected countries to grow flowers for export. It’s about working conditions; who grows these flowers and how are they treated? But it’s also about beauty and life and fragility. Floral foam is the enemy: chicken wire is one of many environmentally-friendly ways of keeping flowers in place. 

In the debate, so many good reasons were offered for this motion being on our agenda. Yes, it could have been a memo to parishes asking them to think about using seasonal flowers and sustainable methods of display. But by coming up from one parish, through deanery and diocesan synod to General Synod, the sustainable church flowers motion demonstrated precisely the way that we can amplify the voices of our parishes; their concerns and their experiences. It celebrated the work of the largely invisible people who, week by week, decorate our church buildings; many of them women, many of them in the older age groups. By asking how we arranged flowers before floral foam, it also recovers lost knowledge and honours older people who can share this knowledge afresh. And, as was pointed out in the debate, we can be angered by silence on Gaza as well as angered by the damage we are doing to the environment. They are not mutually exclusive. There was a procedural motion to move to next business during the debate, but it was defeated. I wasn’t the only convert in the room!

More than once in the debate people quoted Jesus’ words, ‘Consider the lilies of the field’. I was interested to see that the Sustainable Church Flowers site has an excellent analysis of the origin of lilies as an Easter flower, showing how forced flowers out of season have huge costs for the environment. There’s something there about tradition, and how it needs to be challenged in the light of new information.

I even stood to speak. I wasn’t called; it probably didn’t help that I had not put in a request to do so ahead of the debate. I wanted to share a further flower-related point from the mantra ‘reduce-reuse-recycle’. When I married my husband, in another church in our benefice there had been a funeral of a member of the armed forces a couple of days before. His family asked if the flowers from that funeral could be reused in any way, so our vicar called me. I said yes, of course. My friends – mostly from the Baptist church, one of them a professional florist using our wedding to train some other people new to this work – rapidly rethought and wove those funeral flowers into their arrangements. Flowers can move from signs of mortality to signs of celebration. It’s just one aspect of flower power. I was delighted to run into a group of parishioners from St Bartholomew’s Harpley after the debate, and to share my new enthusiasm with them.

I’ve been reflecting on why I was converted to the importance of this motion. It’s partly about initial gut reactions versus learning more. Don’t get me wrong, I love flowers, to the point where I post pictures on them on Bluesky using the hashtag ‘bloomscrolling’. My dahlia photos are particularly widely shared! I’m also a galantophile so this is one of my favourite seasons. But I hadn’t thought through the implications of this debate. Once I knew more, I moved towards enthusiasm. In that sense, it’s like my instant conversion to supporting the ordination of women to the priesthood, many years ago, when I was a deanery synod secretary taking notes as Mary Tanner addressed us and pointed out that the priest at the altar represents Jesus’s humanity, not his maleness.

And I’m just back from church, talking to one of our churchwardens about the flowers in our church, because she’d seen this debate was coming up and had told our wonderful flower arrangers about it; so, from the parish to Synod, and from Synod straight back to the parish. Normal church life has been informed and enhanced.

For me, this debate was Synod at its best. 

Posted in General Synod, Living in Love and Faith | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

February 2026: Questions raised by Synod Questions

Posted on February 7, 2026 by fluff35

The Questions Synod members are allowed to send in are answered by appropriate staff members and then circulated with those answers shortly before Synod meets. We meet on Monday, for a week, so the answers came out yesterday; another 106 pages of reading.

Of the 258 (!) Questions this time around, the ones attracting attention are those on Project Spire – which are first in the list so there will be opportunities for supplementaries on them – and those around the costs, in money and time, of the Living in Love and Faith process. I was one of two members asking about the financial cost of this. The answer (Qs 94/95) is that, from 2017-2025, LLF cost £1.6 million. That of course excludes those of us who offered our time to the work. As for Synodical time, 42¼ hours have been spent on LLF in Synod since Feb 2019 (Q. 96; see also Q. 238: 34 hours of those fell in this quinquennium). And more hours to come next week.

There are two contenders for my personal award for the best Question/answer.

Unlawful use of those parts ordained for generation

The first is one of those ‘what is sex?’ Questions. Synod is notoriously coy, fond of euphemisms and of collective clutching of pearls. Here’s Q. 228, following up on last July’s Synod binning of Issues in Human Sexuality and replacing it with the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct for the Clergy. Revd Dr Patrick Richmond (Norwich) asks:

Given that the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy now serve as a primary document for discernment and discipline, what consideration has been given to the definition of ‘sexual intercourse’ used therein? Specifically, if the term is understood in the narrow sense of biological coitus, as recently argued by the Revd Canon Neil Patterson [https://viamedia.news/2026/01/24/what-is-anglican-sexanyway/ ] what assessment has been made regarding how the Guidelines reflect the Church’s wider authoritative teaching—such as that in the Book of Homilies warning against ‘all unlawful use of those parts ordained for generation’—and what steps are being taken to ensure that candidates and clergy understand the wider scope of the conduct to which they are committing? 

Unlawful use of your parts, eh? And the answer, from the Bishop of Chester as the Chair of the Ministry Development Board:

The replacement of references to Issues in Human Sexuality (“Issues”) with the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct for the Clergy (“the Guidelines”) in the discernment process does not create new obligations for candidates and clergy and nor does it make the Guidelines a primary document for discernment and discipline. 

The primary documents for discernment are the Qualities for Discernment used before a candidate comes to a discernment panel and the Qualities for Formation, using during training for ordinands. Reference is made to the Guidelines within these processes. 

The primary documents for discipline are set out in the statutory grounds within the Clergy Discipline Measure and the proposed Clergy Conduct Measure. 

As was emphasised by Synod in July 2025 when they called upon the House to replace Issues with the Guidelines, and emphasised again by the House when they decided to make the requested change, no aspect of the Church of England’s theological or ethical understanding of matters relating to sexuality has been changed by the decision to refer to the Guidelines in the process of vocational discernment and training for ordained ministry. Moreover, the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy do not in themselves establish or extend the law, though they do point to the law. They seek to provide a framework for behaviour that reflects the highest standard to which all clergy should aspire.

Wisely, avoiding any reference to those ‘parts’. However, Neil, whose Via Media article is cited, knows his Book of Homilies – a sixteenth-century document – and observes that the quotation comes from the Homily Against Whoredom and Adultery, which also commends the ‘godly acts’ of societies where adultery was punished by mutilation or death. It is rather unlikely that we will make it to Q. 228 in the time available, but he suggests that a good supplementary would be ‘Can the bishop confirm that the Church of England no longer supports such punishments?’

Doing the theology (even more of it)

But my absolute favourite Question this time around has to be Q.144 with the legible raised eyebrows in the answer; goodness, someone is reading these documents and wondering about why they cite certain scholars! Readers will recall that the last few years of Synodical business have heard many calls for ‘more theology’ and that’s why the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) has produced a lot of pages of it which are supposed to underpin what is happening (or not happening) now on LLF. One is GS Misc 1431. Here’s the Question:

The Revd Canon Simon Talbott (Ely) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: 

Of the Theologians cited in GS Misc 1431 100% are white, 96% are men, 83% are in opposite sex marriages, 46% are North American, 12% are ex-gay/same-sex attracted identifying evangelicals, and only one (4% of the whole) is an affirming gay Anglican with a partner. Will the House of Bishops please commit to ensuring a broader theological base in the advice it receives, including taking seriously the scholarship of women and LGBTQIA+ Anglicans? 

The Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops:

The question indicates a careful reading of GS Misc 1431. The House is grateful for this engagement with FAOC’s work on GS Misc 1431 and the detailed analysis of sources that the questioner provides. 

FAOC recognises it has a responsibility to ensure representation across a range of backgrounds and perspectives in the scholarship with which it engages, certainly including gender and sexuality. Indeed, FAOC has discussed this responsibility at various times during this quinquennium, sometimes in connection with its work on LLF. 

GS Misc 1431 derives from a particular context. FAOC was asked to address a specific set of process-focussed questions closely connected to the Canons and disciplinary processes of the Church of England. Existing scholarship in this area is very limited, and it was difficult to achieve the desirable level of direct representation. At some points the argument is carried by theologians arguing for greater inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people. 

GS Misc 1431 refers the reader on several occasions to the Living in love and Faith book (2020), which contains a wider range of backgrounds amongst the scholars cited. This wider background has informed FAOC’s theological reflection on all its LLF-related work, although FAOC accepts this is not explicitly reflected in the work that GS Misc 1431 cites.

Advice given to the House of Bishops incorporates more than the sources quoted, always including the wider theological reflections of FAOC’s members, where considerable attention has been paid to issues of diversity. Moreover, the House trusts its advisers to support the whole Church in their work. 

FAOC welcomes analysis of the diversity and representativeness of its work. The Commission will continue to seek broad, balanced engagement with a diverse range of theological voices. 

We know from another Question (Q. 119) that the House of Bishops only had a week to read GS Misc 1431, along with the legal advice and another FAOC paper, so it seems unlikely that they could come up with such a ‘careful reading’ as this. After all, they’d just had 100 pages of theology and law sent out to them. You can see why the bishop – who is the chair of FAOC – comes across as rather impressed, although of course we don’t know if he wrote this answer himself.

This reference to FAOC is timely, because it is clear that the House of Bishops are waiting for yet another FAOC paper, on episcopacy and specifically on Delegated Episcopal Ministry; yes, DEM which the House has already rejected. (see Q. 140). We find out from Q. 254 that the House of Bishops Standing Committee decided such a paper was needed in February 2025 but FAOC haven’t had time to go beyond scoping it yet. Why did they want it?

We don’t get the Minutes of this Standing Committee but we can see where this is coming from by looking at the Minutes of the January 2025 House of Bishops. These feature the Bishop of Leicester (at that point, lead bishop for LLF) saying that the ‘theological undergirding’ for DEM ‘would be ready for May’ (5.2) but also have the Bishop in Europe – remember, he’s the chair of FAOC – saying that FAOC had ‘agreed’ (who asked them? Not clear) to do ‘further work on episcopacy, including ecumenical reflections’ (4.3) and specifically asserting, apparently contrary to what the lead bishop for LLF said at the same meeting, that the House ‘would not have the ecclesiological thinking on DEM by May’ (my italics, Minutes 5.10; and see also 5.7.8). There’s also a reference to the House agreeing ‘To commission more theological work on the appointment of diocesan bishops with some sacramental impairment’ (4.4.1). More? In addition to the other episcopacy work? Answering a Question on the episcopacy work, Q. 254, the Bishop in Europe says that it won’t be ready until ‘well into 2027’, probably not until Autumn. Casting some doubt even on that date, the Bishop added that FAOC changes its membership on 1 April 2027 and it’s the new membership who will decide if the document is ready to publish.

So when we are told in another paper for this Synod that a new Working Group will be set up and that it will ‘report back to General Synod within the first two years of the new General Synod quinquennium’ (from its Terms of Reference); how does that work with the FAOC tasks? The last batch of FAOC papers did not come out when we’d been told to expect them, even after Synod had voted extra resource to make that happen. 

Is this yet another timetable which will inevitably slip? And, if so, can we trust this new Working Group to be able to do any work?

Posted in General Synod, Living in Love and Faith | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Concluding without ending: what happens next with Living in Love and Faith?

Posted on January 25, 2026 by fluff35

February 2026’s meeting of General Synod is nearly upon us; the papers came out last week and I am starting to make my way through them. 

There’s a very full agenda but, for the moment restricting my thoughts to Living in Love and Faith (LLF), what do we have this time around? It’s been obvious for months that LLF is somehow coming to a close now, although what’s interesting is how we envisage a ‘close’. GS 2426 summarises the attempts of the bishops to ‘explore’ (their word) how to implement the motions Synod passed in, and since, February 2023, and it traces what happened between then and the January 2026 House of Bishops Letter to the Church of England. Unless otherwise referenced, all quotations in this blog post are from GS 2426. The bishops’ ‘exploration’ involves going through the various clauses of all these motions while saying nothing we’ve not heard before. The ‘lament and repent’ clause of the February 2023 motion is repeated with more focus on the pain – ‘it has been indescribably painful’. Apparently, while many are feeling bruised and unsafe, we have ‘learned lessons’. I really wish that terminology, thoroughly debased by its repetition in the context of safeguarding failures, could be abandoned.

This latest document comprises 48 pages.

Anything I’ve not seen before?

Not really; it’s all about how there is not going to be any ‘Delegated Episcopal Ministry’, nor any Code of Practice (originally planned, but as nothing has changed, no need for it) nor an Independent Review Panel (because nothing has happened). I suppose one tiny new nugget is that, in response to the clause in the February 2023 motion about ‘monitoring’ the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF), we now have a statement that there is some ‘exploring’ going on to see how this can be done through data we already have. But prayers of blessing with same-sex couples are still only allowed in existing services. However, I can save the C of E some time here – A Church Near You already includes a tag for churches to add if they are willing to use the PLF so why not use that? Maybe it’s just too easy.

The much-delayed Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) documents which came out in November are mentioned yet again (they are in the GS Misc section here and I wrote about them here), but not the various critiques of them that have appeared on Via Media (e.g. here) and other blogs. Instead, we are promised ‘an orientation webinar’ on them ‘prior to the February 2026 group of sessions’. I suppose this is the zoom on 26 January – tomorrow! – which was flagged up in an email sent to Synod members on 21 January. I’m signed up for that. Anyone thinking of standing for Synod later this year, make a note not just that there are extra meetings that turn up ahead of the actual five days in London, but also of the short notice that you are given. And probably better not to be working: the briefing for Safeguarding Structures is scheduled for 3 pm on 2 February.

Is this the end?

The summary of the Bishops’ statement is that it contains a plan to ‘conclude the work under the LLF Motions’ but this doesn’t mean all conversations are ended. So a conclusion to one thing (and LLF was a very large thing) but somehow not an end. There’s a hint that we need a pause, a ‘period of rest’ which could ‘leave more space for the Holy Spirit to move’. I am afraid that comes across as a convenient excuse for doing nothing. And there’s more because, despite the word ‘conclude’ the proposal is not, in fact, to do nothing. The intro to GS 2426 points the reader to Part 3 which offers a ‘more permanent structural framework’ for the continued conversations, which are to happen as part of ‘regular ongoing work’. I’ll get to that shortly.

The continued work is going to include ‘areas that have received less focus to date’, and in my negative moments I read that to mean that a load more people are going to be discovering just how ‘indescribably painful’ it is to have your life dissected, your identity challenged and your most important relationships defined as sinful.

Part 2: the House of Bishops Letter to the Church of England

While the second part of GS 2426 just repeats the January 2026 statement of the House of Bishops, we can read these alongside the Minutes of their October meeting when the decisions were made; these came out very late in the day but they are interesting. 

Part 2 states:

  • The point that the LLF process is ending in a way that is ‘imperfect, untidy and which leaves some important questions unresolved’ (§34)
  • That ‘lessons need to be learned’ point, this time referring to the 2023-2026 period (§35) – well, one lesson is that what Synod passes doesn’t necessarily happen
  • That there will be yet more FAOC work (§29) – and we’ve already seen how long it takes to get reports from them (I am sure for good reasons, but it does look like a delaying tactic) – this time on Delegated Episcopal Ministry, which the rest of the document suggests is already dead so why do we need another report?

But the main take-home message from Part 2 is the proposal for another – another! – working group. This one would be to talk about how Canon B2 could be used to make standalone services of the PLF possible. That makes no sense at all. We already have the long list of legal steps that would be necessary if Canon B2 were to be used. The group would also talk about the legislation and the theology needed for clergy to be in same-sex civil marriages. You’ll remember that same-sex civil partnerships are fine for them but marriages aren’t, because apparently there’s no sex in civil partnerships; something addressed in a recent blog post from Neil Patterson. The C of E really does feel like an alternative universe, and not in a fun way.

As for those ‘areas that have received less focus to date’, the spotlight will be falling on ‘singleness; transgender identity; technology and sexuality; and the wider sexualisation of society’. I am not sure what this says about how we respond to changes in ‘society’ (like it is One Thing?); perhaps, by the time this group says anything, ‘society’ will have moved back towards purity culture again.

Part 3: the new group

This is where the interesting stuff begins. The LLF process is concluding. But it isn’t. Part 3 tells us that the temporary programme of LLF (a temporary programme that has been dragging on since 2017) ‘now needs an established, ongoing place within the life and work of the Church’ with ‘longer term resourcing’. Enter… a new group! The Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group! Not a very snazzy title but we get the picture. It will be driving and marshalling the work. It will issue advice (not relationships advice, I trust) but the Bishops will make the decisions. It will have workstreams! It will manage teams! And it will report back to Synod by 2028. Annex 2 gives the details. As usual it’s designed to be bishop-heavy (up to 5 bishops): the 10-12 members will be picked ‘by  Archbishops in consultation with the LLF Programme Board’. It will meet four times a year which doesn’t seem like a recipe for making progress.

This group, if Synod agrees (and maybe even if it doesn’t?) will explore how standalone services for same-sex couples can happen under B2 and how clergy could enter same-sex marriages. Interestingly, the document doesn’t say (this is on p.20) same-sex civil marriages. So are we talking about church marriage? That seems unlikely. But it will also consider ‘proportionate pastoral reassurance measures to accompany’ these marriages. Maybe we are talking about church marriages after all?

Part 4: what comes to Synod next month

Part 4 simply consists of the 4-clause motion for Synod to vote on, closing LLF and setting up the RSGWG.

Annex 3: asking the dioceses

In the introduction to the document the feedback from consultations at diocesan synods was described as ‘helpful’ but GS 2426 also has a very short report on these consultations which shows that no conclusions were possible because they weren’t all working with the same questions, and anyway the results from only 24 dioceses were available for analysis. The material analysed isn’t just from the consultations but also from emails – from those who couldn’t be there in person? That’s a surprise. I note that in my diocese we were told no participation was possible if you weren’t at the meeting. 

Pastoral Guidance

And finally… we have an updated version of the Pastoral Guidance document, which is about how to decide whether to use the PLF in a church, cathedral or chaplaincy. This still includes some pretty dodgy questions like 1.2.2 ‘Do the PLF presuppose sexual activity? Could or should a minister ask questions of the couple with regards to sexual activity?’ While the answer is No, and No, even seeing the question is distasteful. There are also some questions which I wonder if anyone is ever going to ask in reality, like whether you can enter a covenanted friendship if you are married to someone other than this friend.

Back to Synod

The LLF material in this Synod comes in two instalments: a presentation on 10 February and a debate on 12 February. The latter comes after a debate on a diocesan synod motion on using sustainable flowers in churches: because ‘Church flowers are an expression of our worship and an important part of our welcome to people in our churches’ (GS 2433B). There is a certain irony in having a debate on flowers immediately before a debate which includes reference to that Pastoral Guidance and the importance of not following ‘wedding traditions’ (§1.3.6) in a service using the PLF.

What is currently far from certain is how Synod will respond to this concluding-which-isn’t-ending, this move from a very long and very expensive ‘process’ to an ‘established, ongoing place’ with dedicated resources. Will Synod vote for it, or against it? Will the motion to set up the new group be so heavily amended that it falls under its own weight? And why should we believe – whether we want change, or we don’t – that anything different is going to happen? Is this just finding an even longer patch of long grass, into which we can deposit not just lesbian and gay people, but trans people too?

Watch this space.

Posted in Church of England and gender, equal marriage, General Synod, Living in Love and Faith, marriage | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What colour should it be? ‘Furthering’ Living in Love and Faith

Posted on January 7, 2026 by fluff35

As we start to look towards February’s General Synod, with an hour scheduled in the draft agenda for a Living in Love and Faith (LLF) “presentation”, and another 4 hours for a “debate” (not clear yet on what). it’s time, I think, for (yet another) update on the process.

It’s been obvious for a while that LLF is in some way drawing to a close; a pretty strong clue was that, when Nick Shepherd left in September as the main staff lead, he was replaced by Revd Helen Fraser on secondment just until March 2026. That suggests LLF ends at the February General Synod, with a bit of mopping up left to do.

But what do ‘close’ and ‘end’ mean? That’s a good question. Let’s backtrack briefly…

The House of Bishops met in October. We still await the Minutes and I shall update this if those add anything to what we already know. A 15 October press release announced simply that “a series of key decisions” had been made “with near unanimity”, following the release of long-promised documents from the Legal Office and the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC). My own brief summary of those documents is here and they have since been challenged by a range of other people; for example, as “not particularly helpful”, “confusing and at times needlessly offensive” or as “shamefully inadequate”. It will be interesting to find out just how much time the bishops – who have quite enough to do without having around 150 pages of law and theology dumped on them – were given to digest those documents; at least one Question on this will be asked in February’s Synod.

The main decision in October was on the synodical and legislative processes that would be necessary (a) for standalone services of blessing for committed same-sex couples to happen, and (b) before ordinands could enter training, or existing clergy could be allowed to be relicensed, if they entered a same-sex civil marriage. None of this is exactly new. I’ve noted here that much of it had already been laid out in other synodical papers which have already come to Synod, such as GS2346 which was debated in February 2024. There’s already an established route for new services, Canon B2 (explained here), although not everyone agrees that a standalone blessing would need to take that route. Allowing clergy to enter same-sex civil marriages would need to be an “amending canon and measure”. Nothing new there either. But no sense of wanting to start the processes.

Meanwhile, blessings of committed same-sex couples continue in existing, scheduled church services, using thePrayers of Love and Faith commended by the House of Bishops under Canon B5. So what’s the problem with using these in standalone services? Apparently that they may look like weddings, with casual attenders thinking they’d been to a church marriage because … frilly white dresses, flowers, rings, whatever. In the Minutes of the May 2025 House of Bishops meeting (6.6), Revd Dr Casey Strine told the House that the term now being used for these was “symbolic actions. The latter term is preferred to the earlier terminology of liturgical aesthetics”. One example among many of how there seems to be a lot of work on language without any action. It reminds me of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, where after 573 committee meetings fire still has not been discovered, and where the “single simplest machine in the entire Universe” – the wheel – has not yet been discovered, but the “marketing girl” deflects criticism with “Alright, Mr. Wiseguy, if you’re so clever, you tell us what colour it should be.”

Of course, casual attenders at all sorts of church services may not grasp the theological niceties. I’m not sure regular attenders grasp them all. But is that really such a problem?

The other decision in October was that Delegated Episcopal Ministry (DEM) – arrangements for diocesan bishops who thought one way on LLF to delegate their role to other bishops who thought the opposite way, for bishop-y things like confirmations and ordinations – was officially not going to happen. And without that, there would be no need for some sort of code of practice to set out how it would be happening. Because it wouldn’t be happening! The “near unanimity” here was no surprise, as for conservatives who want their own “third province” – I wrote about that here – DEM didn’t go far enough, while for everyone else it went too far in eroding the role of the diocesan bishop. I can see that; it’s dangerously near to “pick your own bishop” and if you could do that according to their view on lesbian and gay people then why not on everything else?

And so we come to December. According to the published agenda, the December House of Bishops meeting had nearly two hours allocated to LLF in a meeting scheduled for just over three hours in total. The 16 December press release from that meeting states that it did not, as we had expected and as the press release from October had anticipated, make those “Final decisions”. Instead, the House announced that it was going “to spend more time finalising its proposals on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process”; the decisions made in October “were not contested” but work was needed “to finalise” the text of a letter from the House. This, presumably, is a reference to the Bishops’ Letter, which was long ago announced as one of the documents that would be issued but which has so far not come to Synod in any form. The language is interesting: ‘finalise’, to go with ‘close’ and ‘end’.

So what’s driving the LLF process into the mud?

Some possible answers would be:

  • Reading the various FAOC documents has made the bishops nervous (the problem with this is that they don’t seem to have had time to read them before the October meeting)
  • DEM was A Step Too Far for everyone (pity that they couldn’t have decided that before all the work was done developing a plan for local groups of dioceses that would make it possible to find conservative bishops when asked for)
  • The Alliance has done brilliantly in scaring the bishops with their talk of an Action Day on which PCCs or – if they don’t want to pass a motion to this effect – just the vicar would announce to their diocesan bishop one or more of these statements: we want to have the oversight of a different bishop/we are not paying into the common fund but will only allow our money to be used to support parishes with whom we agree on theology/we want ordinands to be trained in a special “orthodox” [1] programme rather than in the C of E theological colleges and courses.
  • Bishops like the sound of a closure to LLF as a ‘process’ but with the onus being placed on the rest of the church to decide what to do. To quote the summary of the words of Bishop Martyn Snow at the May 2025 House of Bishops, “Failure to reach agreement would not be the end of the conversation. Synod members would table Private Member’s Motions; dioceses would pass Diocesan Synod Motions. These would pass or fail by narrow margins with consequences.”

As we wait for more from the bishops – not just the minutes from October, which would have been approved in December so I had expected to be released before now, but also from their next meeting in the middle of this month – we can at least see where the driving force of The Alliance, the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), stands.

The CEEC issued a press release and newsletters after the October House of Bishops. The key message from this group, who believe that any sexual expression between two people of the same sex is a sin, is that the bishops need to go even further, so The Alliance must “continue to contend” (they do like their alliteration). And it’s not enough for them to prevent use of the Prayers of Love and Faith in existing services: they have to be taken out of use completely, because they are “unbiblical”. CEEC “long[s] for the bishops to remove the prayers they commended in 2023” and “If that is not possible – let’s advocate for a structural rearrangement which secures orthodoxy going forward.” So that’s the third province again.

And that Action Day, originally planned for 1 December? According to The Alliance, it’s not off the table; there’s been what they call a “pivot” away from putting the plans into action, but it will be happening “if and when the red lines of standalone services and clergy same-sex marriage are furthered.”

Note that: “furthered”. What counts as “furthering”? That’s the big question. If any new group is set up to continue work on relationships and marriage, will that count? If the remit of such a group is to produce another document, or to offer possible ways forward without actually committing to such movement, is that “furthering”? Like The Alliance leaders, the trustees of Together for the Church of England met with the Archbishop of York and others at Lambeth Palace on 5 November. Like them, we were told that some sort of group would probably be proposed. But much here depends on the wording. Would it be a “dialogue” group or something with more direction? The Alliance have written about their aversion to it being a “steering” group because that, to them, means “furthering”. Back to the thesaurus, everyone. 

Because playing with words is so much easier than thinking about the people whose lives are most affected by the continued inertia of the Church of England.

[1] Here I am having trouble, as usual, in finding labels for the different views. Inclusive/conservative used to work; then the conservatives seemed to prefer to call themselves orthodox and the rest of us progressive; and recently their word for us seems to be ‘revisionists’.

Posted in General Synod, Living in Love and Faith | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment