The Church of England’s General Synod will meet in London from 9 to 13 February. The agenda and papers for the meeting were released today.
There are links to the papers below the fold, grouped by the day on which they are due to be debated. There are also a number of GS Misc papers and items of deemed and contingency business.
Monday, 9 February
Tuesday, 10 February
Wednesday, 11 February
Thursday, 12 February
Friday, 13 February
Deemed Business
Contingency Business
GS Misc Papers
Notice Papers
I am concerned that there should be real inclusion of LGBT+ people in the proposed Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group, and also in the proposed Pastoral Consultative Group, so LGBT+ people are not just talked ‘about’. I also feel concern that the make up of these two groups, tasked with continuing where LLF left off, is not dominated by episcopal and clerical members. The five members drawn from General Synod should ideally be drawn from the laity to create balance and offset the clerical members. Also, should the choice of GS members be left to Synod to decide, rather… Read more »
These committees will be stuffed with a majority of tame clerics to ensure that nothing really comes from them. Lots of warm words, hand wringing and confetti apologies. Ironically this will be more obvious if the committees are pale, male and stale.
In other news, the government has u-turned on the capping of the Listed Places of Worship grant scheme, and quadrupled the funding available to £92m per year in a new ‘Places of Worship Renewal Fund’. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-bumper-15-billion-package-to-restore-national-pride
This is very welcome news. But am I misunderstanding it or is there some sleight of hand going on? Wasn’t the £23M the amount for one year (2025-6)? Whereas the £92M is for four years (April 2026 to March 2030). So it’s continuing the same level of funding with no allowance for inflation. “In recognition of the important role religious heritage buildings play in the UK’s national story, a new £92 million fund called the Places of Worship Renewal Fund will replace the £23 million Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme and bring these important buildings into line with other… Read more »
Hmmmm. I have had a quick glance again at 1429. It describes the dynamic, changing nature of doctrine, the different influencers of doctrine, the processes by which doctrine is revised. But I did not immediately find anything saying what the central doctrine of the church is (i confess I did not check all the paper). No mention of at-one-ment, and very little about crucifixion and resurrection, if any. but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness Maybe the paper started from the viewpoint that everybody agrees about at-one-ment, but I am not… Read more »
Anglican doctrinal discussion has tended lately to be more about process than content.
Quite, It is not doctrinal discussion. It is doctrinal process discussion.
It’s a doctrinal process discussion after PLF were introduced!
The central doctrine of the church is the Trinity, all other doctrines flow from this. The doctrine of atonement is not directly related to LLF, it’s just another doctrine that tends to divide evangelicals and liberals. PLF was decided before any discussion about doctrinal process, which is why no one’s happy!
If the doctrine of the atonement is not directly related to LLF why is LLF regarded by some as a ‘first order\salvation issue? Also the theological and doctrinal background to human sexuality, and therefore PLF, has been debated in synod and through significant reports and processes in each of the last seven decades. It is very hard to argue PLF was decided ‘before any discussion’.
As you well know PLF was decided well before the Churches theology and doctrine on marriage was formally considered late last year, and by a sleight of hand that no one is allowed to talk about same sex in relation to PLF. This has eternal consequences for the church. PLF and LLF directly relate to the doctrine of marriage. If PLF and LLF are inconsistent with the doctrine on marriage as evangelicals argue, then the doctrine of salvation and atonement comes into play. The church could of course repent and it’s never too late, but making upholding church doctrine a… Read more »
As you well know, PLF is not a marriage service. I do not understand your reference to a sleight of hand – or the threat of ‘eternal consequences’. Do you mean the church will be eternally damned if develops its doctrine to include ss marriage? Well I do think we should have kept the discussion marriage on the table but it was removed very early on in the LLF process. That was a mistake. That debate waits to happen.
Maybe I’m not using the word ‘atonement’ in the correct way. I mean the cross, resurrection and everything the Gospels and St Paul in Romans talks about. Including sermon on the Mount etc.
I would put the nature of God (and the Trinity) at zeroth order, and what I call atonement as first order. It is not ‘just another doctrine’.
If what I label as ‘atonement’ above divides evangelicals and liberals, we are doomed. LLF is about level 15.
If anything were to highlight how tin eared the CofE has become it is the paper before Synod next month on church flowers: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/gs-2433a-dsm-sustainable-church-flowers.pdf Anyone with a scintilla of parish experience will know how important flowers are to our core demographic. This report with its ‘Nanny knows best’ tone is symptomatic of how the CofE sweats the small stuff; straining at gnats whilst swallowing camels; whilst failing catastrophically in crucial areas such as safeguarding and the wellbeing of LGBTQI+ members. The comfort flowers bring to the bereaved for example is worth any amount of floral foam or air miles. Lavish… Read more »
I am not sure who is “picking fights with doughty flower arrangers“, bearing in mind this Synod motion would itself have been put forward by some of those same doughty flower arrangers. And it seems that those flower arrangers agree with your main point. The first paragraph of the introduction to the paper says “Flowers have long held a cherished place in church life. From adorning altars to celebrating weddings and marking seasonal festivals, floral arrangements bring beauty, symbolism, and a sense of reverence to sacred spaces.” But now it is known that the traditional way of creating flower arrangements… Read more »
Floral Foam has been recognised as an ecological nightmare for many years. Indeed its use has been banned by Royal Horticultural Society amongst others. The reality is that it is not the church flower arrangers who cause the big problem, it is the lavish floral displays expensively provided by funeral companies. These companies well know that there are better alternatives, but these would reduce their profit margin, so they do not tell the bereaved.
I think the underlying issue is the enormous range of topics Synod is asked to consider in not enough time- and this in itself is used as a form of manipulation to ensure nothing gets proper prioritisation or consideration. At the risk of upsetting Fr Dean and his doughty flower arrangers I think Francis James has hit the nail on the head.Floral foam wasn’t invented till the 50’s in America as a byproduct of other industrial foam production. Us Oldies will remember our mothers arranging church flowers using glass disks with holes in and chicken wire- or even wet sand.… Read more »
I totally agree but would add that wedding flowers tend to be far more extensive and costly.
In taking note of the papers in spport of the Agenda, I observe: GS 2431- Seat distribution- While not wishing to suggest an analogy with Titanic deckchairs, I note the reduction in numbers on electoral rolls over the last six years. Going down … steeply GS 2408 A/Y- Is it really a priority to spend staff and Synod time to create/ allow more services for busy clergy to take, whether or not with ‘sustainable flowers’ (GS2433A/B)?; the latter being discussed while Diocesan Motions regarding Palestinian people are to wait until July. GS 2311B/W- Clergy Conduct- These indicate a proper interest… Read more »
In June 2025, Palestine Christians protested that the Carlisle DSM had again been shunted off the agenda. What is the real reason that this is happening? In between the current items – Clergy Conduct, Living in Faith and Love, Re-imagining Care, God the Creator, Mission Initiatives Code of Practice, Sustainable Church Flowers and the Nature of Doctrine – has anyone noticed that from June 2025 and June 2026 another 10,000 will die resulting distantly from our time as the Mandatory Power? What is the real not the proclaimed reason for this organised silence?