Another day, another LLF-related meeting… I’ve been to many of these over the years, several with whichever bishops were designated ‘lead bishop’, and one memorable gathering with Justin Welby when he was Archbishop of Canterbury. There’s usually a cup of tea (various interesting flavours) and a biscuit, although even those are not guaranteed. 20 January was unusual, not just because the quality of the food offerings was much higher – the 5 pm start had brought out olives and stuffed peppers and hummus and quiche – but also for its timing, on the same day as, and immediately after, the House of Bishops (HoB) had met. Above all, though, it was noteworthy because Archbishop Stephen Cottrell was present along with the sole current ‘lead bishop’, Martyn Snow, and the current staff member in charge, Nick Shepherd, with one of his assistants. And, unlike the former Archbishop of Canterbury, he listened.

The meeting was to allow those of us who are trustees of Together to hear what had happened at the HoB. So, were the improved food offering and personnel accompanied by improved progress? Ah, there’s the rub. We had what Archbishop Stephen rightly called ‘a robust and friendly conversation’. But the topic was that the planned timetable for LLF has been changed, after an unexpected intervention from the ‘liberal’ bishops, proposing a delay. A delay? But aren’t these precisely the women and men who are arguing for change?

The previous plan – and we’ve seen many, many ‘timetables’ already, all of them superseded within a few months – was to have a ‘presentation with questions’ in February, but no decisions; those would all be coming in July. These decisions would put into action the previous July’s Synod vote to allow the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) to be used in standalone services, reflected at that time in headlines like ‘CofE green-lights standalone services for same-sex blessings’. But it turns out that the lights weren’t really green. While the working group to move this along has come up with, for example, a process of registering to use them so that their reception could be monitored over a three-year trial period (I’m not entirely sure what they think they’ll discover from this monitoring), there still needs to be more action before they can happen. Yet we’ve also been told – from the top – that there is no reason why such services can’t happen already, it’s just that we’ve been asked to wait for the registration process. On, or off? Green, or amber? It is hard to know. Meanwhile, no decisions in July; they will be delayed until a future Synod. And the clock ticks towards the end of the current 5-year period of Synod’s life, with elections coming around again in August 2026.

So why are the very bishops who most support change wanting that longer time frame, which would quite possibly mean that the next set of Synod elections is even more dominated by the two questions of whether same-sex committed relationships can be blessed using the PLF in a special service, and whether people in same-sex civil marriage can be considered for training for ministry (and, if already ordained, can go on working for the church if they marry)? The answer is that they feel we need to extend the time frame because we’ve made this a complicated process in which documents like the PLF guidance depend on other documents, which in turn depend on others, and on theological papers about pretty well anything that comes up – not just what marriage is, but what we think makes us a church, what episcopacy is, whether and how doctrine can change, etc etc. For example, on the questions around those in discernment or who are ordained who marry their partners, this is what the current Vocations and Ministry group is considering; they can’t do any more at present because their work depends on the theology papers being written by ERG, and members of the groups haven’t seen these papers, but have only had presentations on their contents. Having seen various drafts – not of the theology papers, but of the other documents – when I was on an earlier working group in Autumn 2023, and before yesterday’s meeting, it’s clear that some such drafts are more advanced than others, and that some really haven’t shifted much since I first saw them. One thing which we need right now is to share these, and the theological papers, properly, and at yesterday’s meeting we were assured that many will be made available to us in the papers for February Synod. As someone pointed out at the meeting, this does often sound like delaying tactics; do we really need to start all this theology from scratch, mandating the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC, of which many of us were blissfully unaware until recently) to produce a paper, when we are well aware that Anglicans in other churches have thought about these things before and have written documents about them? FAOC has a history of finding it hard to reach consensus, which is why in the past they’ve also issued ‘minority reports’. Apparently ERG (which is basically the bishops on FAOC) has been writing some of these documents to try to make progress. 

So, getting back to why there is a delay, if July Synod was offered only part of this ‘package’, and did not have all the theological documents, it is reasonable to argue that its deliberations would be open to the charges of ‘but we don’t yet know how this would relate to the other stuff involved’ and/or ‘but what is the theology of … whatever’, and no decisions would be possible. And it seems to be that which the ‘liberal’ bishops are trying to avoid by waiting until all the papers are finalised.

A key area which we raised with those in the meeting is Delegated Episcopal Ministry (DEM), which has morphed from ‘pastoral provision’ in which offering oversight from bishops other than one’s diocesan was all based on relationships and trust, to become something far more structural and formal involving local groupings of dioceses with plans for which bishop would look after those who were unhappy with the diocesan because that diocesan did/did not approve of or did/did not themselves use the PLF. The concern here is obviously that this moves a little closer to the Third Province separation desired by some conservatives. The Archbishop noted that in some dioceses it would be very simple to work out who offers episcopal ministry to whom, but in others it would need something more. We were told that the HoB now thinks that DEM is a significant change in doctrine and so needs… more theological work! It is very important that Synod members see these plans for themselves. As we’ve been told throughout that changes would be ‘proportional’, it does seem extraordinary to create a whole new structure of dioceses just so that the PLF – already in use in existing services – could also be used in standalone (now being called ‘bespoke’) services.

Bishop Martyn wanted to make clear that he had not voted for the change in timetable; suggesting that he did not agree that there was the risk of ‘catastrophe’ in July if not all documents were ready. This, we were told, was a ‘recalibration’. But as every other timetable has not been met, why, I wonder, should we believe that this one will be? One answer may be that having the Archbishop of York personally involved to the extent that he was yesterday can only be helpful.

When the documents come to Synod, it will be instructive to see if LGBTQIA+ people themselves are visible. Back in Autumn 2023 the working group I was in asked for a sense of joy and welcome for LGBTQIA+ people but that has disappeared even more. It’s all about structures and rules and a complete lack of trust. We noted yesterday that only conservative consciences are taken seriously in the DEM model, with conservative priests being ‘protected’ from being in a diocese with liberal bishops and conservative bishops being ‘protected’ from liberals. We observed that, no matter how many theological papers are written, some conservatives will never agree with them.

Meanwhile, despite the changes to the previous plan, the decision to send some of the documents to Diocesan Synods immediately after February 2025 Synod remains in place. The documents will come with questions like ‘does this seem a helpful way forward?’ and the LLF team seems to think that the answers will have some benefit. I’m not sure what; in principle, of course, we should consult more widely, but looking at the history of past consultations it can end up as a mess, with some dioceses just answering the set questions and others passing contradictory following motions. The Archbishop in particular is keen on this consultation. But as those papers will only be about PLF, with nothing on clergy and same-sex marriage, I am not convinced that there is any point; even if the papers come with quiche and olives.