It’s been quite a week for Living in Love and Faith news. Yesterday, an update from the House of Bishops putting everything on hold. It was clear when the staff team for LLF was modified a few months back, with the new lead being seconded only until Spring 2026, that LLF was coming to an end, but it was still surprising to see that even those ‘standalone’ services using the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) remain off the table. Note that these are now called ‘bespoke’. That’s a word which suggests a make-it-up-as-you-go-along service, which surely has never been the intention – a standalone service simply means the contents of PLF but not as part of an existing church service. Words have power, and to me it feels like this one has shifted to make it sound more alarming. Yet in other parts of the Church of England, they really are making services up as they go along, with what are being called New Worshipping Communities creating their own liturgy – and not for marriage (which only became church business in the Middle Ages) but for the Eucharist.

Today, another document appeared from the Alliance, setting out their plans for an Action Day on 1 December. More on that below. And then tomorrow lunchtime, yet another residential meeting of the LLF Working Groups is scheduled to begin. I would hazard a guess that the House of Bishops’ update makes the residential even more pointless, but it doesn’t seem to have been cancelled.

Here I want to focus on that Alliance document. It has always been clear in meetings I’ve attended that there are those in the room who have no interest in finding some sort of middle ground. Yet they remain in the room. That doesn’t seem a helpful way to proceed. I took part in the autumn 2023 set of three meetings between progressives and conservatives (called “Living with Difference”), where the progressives were willing to make the concession that the PLF should be an ‘opt-in’ – where parishes would have to decide to opt in to use them – rather than their use being the default position: but the conservatives simply restated the same demands at each meeting instead of suggesting any compromises. And so it has continued. Conservatives – or, at least, those who speak for them at these meetings – will be content with nothing less than their own bishops, their own selection conferences for ministry, their own ordinations and even their own theological colleges. And, quite possibly, their own archbishop too, in other words a third province in addition to the geographical ones of York and Canterbury. 

As a precursor to all that, the Alliance – the group combining the unlikely bedfellows of the Revitalisation Trust, Church of England Evangelical Council, Holy Trinity Brompton churches, New Wine, Living Out and traditional Catholics – wants a temporary “De Facto Parallel Province” (a DFPP, a particularly unsnappy acronym). That would, if necessary – which means, if there were ever to be any further move towards Prayers of Love and Faith in standalone services, or towards accepting clergy in same-sex marriages – become a split in which those leaving would have their own appointment and training systems plus full access to Church of England money. However, from the document issued yesterday, neither of those moves are going to happen. So do the conservatives still need their DFPP?

The disregard of geography that would follow in this DFPP has been encouraged by the situation with women priests, where it is permitted for parishes to receive their episcopal oversight from one of the Provincial Episcopal Visitors, a.k.a. a Flying Bishop, whose role crosses several dioceses. Only recently it was agreed by the Independent Reviewer, whose role is to arbitrate if a question arises around how we deal with these parishes, that more people are needed to minister to those who refuse the ministry of women. Well, that was always likely, once geography was abandoned. Travel takes time.

And now, courtesy of a leaked document from the Alliance, we can see what else they’ve been working towards in recent months.

This document is the Alliance Campaign Manual, bearing a date in late September. It outlines a plan starting with “Network Influencers” – chilling phrase? – identifying suitable incumbents. Then those incumbents get PCC members onside in order to work towards PCCs passing one or more of a range of motions, which include “That this PCC resolves to uphold Biblical orthodoxy by not permitting the Prayers of Love and Faith, commended by the House of Bishops in December 2023, to be used within St xxx Church and its associated congregations.” Passing such motions builds up towards ‘Action Day’, 1 December 2025 (although at one point it is stated as “prob. November”, and at another “in late Autumn”, perhaps relics of a previous version of the plan). On Action Day, parishes are expected to write to their bishops (I assume as it says ‘Diocesan Bishop’ even those who have opted for a Flying Bishop will write to that Diocesan who is not allowed to show up in their churches) to pass on their PCC’s views and decisions.

The Manual says the early stages of this were scheduled to happen between June and November, so let’s use the past tense here. In order to “onboard” (yes, that’s the language used in the Campaign Manual) PCC members, church leaders have been forming little groups of ministers and churchwardens who agree with the Alliance, with those in this group then having 1-to-1s with those PCC members. If members “hold strong views” (I think I know what that means) then the incumbent, rather than a warden or associate priest, has prioritised meeting with such people. Those with “progressive views” will be “heard and listened to”. I should hope so! Why is it necessary even to say that? An example of the sort of pressure which can be applied to any progressive members of the PCC is that incumbents are asked to remind them that they are trustees, and therefore should “represent the congregation and focus on the theology and mission of the church rather than personal experience and conviction”. In other words, if their views are not what you want to hear, you can try the “it’s not about your views” approach. So … what if the congregation supports the PLF? Are conservatives supposed to bow to that support, or to continue to try to get the motions through the PCC? And I find the dynamics of summonsing a PCC member to the office to sound them out very disturbing. Aren’t there safeguarding issues here? Power imbalances, potential threats?

Once the “onboarding” has happened, PCCs have been asked if they want to move to another bishop; whether they want to stop sending money to the diocese (Parish share) and send it somewhere else where it would only be used to help parishes who are also in the Alliance; and whether they want to encourage potential ordinands to take part in an “orthodox vocations programme”. If the PCC didn’t want to play ball then the church leader has been told that they can write to the bishop anyway.

The situation with ordinands is particularly disturbing. I’m an elected member of the Ministry Development Board, and we’ve put much time into finding ways to adjust how selection, training and formation are provided, to take account of the current needs of those coming forward and offering for ordained and lay ministry. That means we’ve been working with dioceses and theological education institutions to try out ways to work with older candidates with much experience, with those whose circumstances mean they need to train part-time, and so on. There is a Ministry Experience Scheme which gives 18-29 year olds the chance to try out different areas of ministry. Personally, I am strongly opposed to having theological training reserved for those of one tradition only, or for those who all share the same view on women’s ordination, or indeed on same-sex relationships. Clergy and lay ministers should be able to work with those with whom they do not always agree.

But, to the existing models for discernment and training, the Alliance Campaign Manual adds in another programme: Ready To Serve. It is being piloted by Southwell & Nottingham diocese, and the Alliance is recommending all its potential ordinands take this path “if supportive discernment is not available locally”. This seems odd, when diocesan directors of ordinands focus on the person in front of them, not on their own personal beliefs. But there’s more to Ready To Serve; the website clarifies that it is “open to those beyond the diocese”. So is this an Alliance programme and does it prefigure an Alliance training path and eventual ordination by the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham for anyone who isn’t in agreement with their bishop?

As ever, people who are LGBTQi+ (the preferred letters of Alliance) don’t feature much. They weren’t even mentioned in the Church of England statement that came out on 15 October. The Alliance Campaign Manual insists that homophobia is wrong and that everyone is welcome in their churches (I assume, so long as they are not partnered) and it uses the phrase “radical welcome”. To explain what that means, they point to the Living Out resources. Not that radical, then. Living Out, of course, tells gay people – sorry, same-sex attracted people, the preferred terminology – that they must either remain celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex.

What are the connections between the House of Bishops statement and the Alliance Campaign Manual?It is all in the public domain: so you can make up your own mind.