I am running out of titles, as another year of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process approaches its end; in last year’s autumn update I shared some of the dates but it has all become far more complicated with so many working groups now, so I won’t be doing that!

As the process continues to roll on, one of the next stages envisaged – mentioned in previous documents put before General Synod but now scheduled for February to July 2025 – is to have the dioceses discuss it. This is the context for the video which has been posted by the diocese of St Albans, made by the lead LLF bishop, +Martyn Snow. It’s a short summary of LLF to be shown to bring people up to speed. Not surprisingly, there have been mixed reactions.

But let’s focus on the main message, that the dioceses are to discuss it. What’s ‘it’ here? We don’t know yet. Standalone services of blessing? They are where +Martyn begins. I thought we’d already agreed in principle to start a three-year trial of those, but it doesn’t look like it. Churches “will be able to use the prayers” in this way “before too long”. How long is that, then? Will the dioceses be discussing allowing clergy in same sex marriages to keep their Permission to Officiate, and allowing people in such marriages to be ordained or licensed (because lay people in some dioceses are affected, as well as those testing a vocation to ordained ministry)? Or the pastoral provision, the system to give people who aren’t happy with their bishop’s position on all this the chance to relate to a different bishop for ordinations, confirmations, or whatever?

I have been told that what will come to diocesan synods may be the various drafts from the various current working groups, but as the diocesan synod meetings won’t be until February, that suggests that the drafts first have to go through the February Synod. I can’t begin to imagine what that meeting will be like. While Synod has made its decisions – yes, by narrow majorities, but by majorities nonetheless – there are still members who are emphatically saying that it’s all wrong and they will go on trying to block everything. So I assume we’ll have the usual debate that we have every Synod meeting, with the usual attempts at amendments and the usual votes followed by the usual objections. Traditionally – and I think this has been going on long enough to count as a ‘tradition’ – some members will stand up and ask for ‘the legal advice’, and others will insist that this is a change of doctrine and needs two-thirds rather than simple majorities. One of the pieces of work being done by the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) and the theological adviser (or advisers) to the House of Bishops is precisely on changing doctrine, so that may help.

What is diocesan synod supposed to make of all this? In any diocesan synod, there are going to be members who have done the course, and/or read the book or watched the videos (IMHO, the best bit of the outputs of LLF): and there are going to be people who haven’t, because they know what they think, aren’t interested in hearing from those who have different convictions, or just had other things to do over the last few years. There are also people who did a different course commended by the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), which is odd when there were also conservatives working on the official resources. There are, I suspect, also going to be members who had thought it was all sorted now, not least when we’ve had people from the conservative end of things announce that the ‘watershed’ had been reached over a year ago; December 2023, the commendation by the bishops of the Prayers of Love and Faith, was supposed to be the crossing of the line, as it accepts that a couple in a committed same sex relationship can come to church to be blessed.

We could step back from this and think about how it’s been in the past when something has been sent out to the dioceses for them to discuss it. This happened when marriage in church after divorce was being considered in 2002 (so remarkably recent…). In the summary prepared by the House of Bishops for Synod, GS1449, there were queries about whether cohabitation was the same as marriage, and it was the inclusion in marriage of “public vows before God and other people” which was singled out as the crunch point of difference (GS1449 p.4). Similar questions to those being asked now, about “does this contradict Canon B30?” (the one man and one woman for life canon) and the relationship between upholding principles and providing pastoral ministry, were in play. And of course the legal requirements for clergy and the issue of what would need an Act of Parliament or a Measure were thoroughly discussed.

GS 1449 has a handy annex (Annex 3) on what the dioceses came up with there. Some were worried about Canon B30: the legal officers gave their advice and unanimously agreed that “the proposals were consistent with the Church’s doctrine of marriage as reflected in the Canons” (p.3). The possibility of moving to universal civil marriage with a religious ceremony after it was – as it is now – raised by some. There was much discussion about the proposal for the diocesan bishop to decide on all cases; it was clarified that parish clergy had to make the decisions but could ask for the bishop’s advice. And there were questions about whether the church service should be different if one or both partners had been divorced; the report was clear that there should not be different marriage rites.

On the practicalities of how this referral to Diocesan Synods worked, they were given a report from a working party with two questions on which to vote: 

Do you accept the principle that there are circumstances in which a divorced person may be married in church during the lifetime of a former spouse?

Do you support the recommendations of the Working Party … as being the right way to proceed? If not, what do you consider to be the shortcomings of the recommendations?

The result? The principle was supported, but they couldn’t agree on how to proceed. 62% supported the bishops’ proposals. Some PCCs and deaneries also discussed it all, as did FLAME – Family Life and Marriage Education [1] – and the Mothers’ Union. Many comments were “mutually contradictory” (GS1449 p.38).

Some dioceses presented following motions or related Private Member’s Motions, or produced amendments – for example, calling for “consistency across CofE” (Chester – and note that this issue of local vs national also comes up in the new video); for a “form of service for the ending of a marriage” (Ely). London, which didn’t like the Working Party recommendations at all, passed a motion with seven different clauses. St Eds and Ips cancelled its vote due to Foot & Mouth.

So, assuming no more Foot & Mouth, how will these diocesan consultations be managed this time around? How do we avoid foot in mouth, where there is so much pain involved? If following motions etc are allowed, I think we can guarantee that CEEC will make sure its members put those forward in every diocese, rather like they already find members to present predictable Questions on LLF matters to many meetings of diocesan synods. Will there be formal, counted votes or a transcript of points raised? At General Synod, we have had the small group discussion format, with various levels of facilitation, alongside formal debates, and with chaplains on standby to handle the fallout.

I hope that someone is thinking about these issues, because after so many painful General Synod votes the last thing I want to experience is the diocesan equivalent. Maybe we could be radical; for example, will people be asked to do (made to do?) the Difference Course or something similar before coming to what could be a very difficult meeting?

[1] Adrian Thatcher addressed a FLAME meeting in 2003, on the theme of betrothal – his lecture is well worth reading.