The Church of England’s House of Bishops met today, and agreed to spend more time finalising its proposals on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process. There is a press release, which is copied below.
House of Bishops continues work finalising Living in Love and Faith decisions
16/12/2025
The House of Bishops has agreed to spend more time finalising its proposals on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process, which explores the Church’s approach to identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage.
At a meeting at Lambeth Palace in London today, bishops discussed a series of decisions taken in principle on the direction of LLF at their last meeting in October.
While those decisions were not contested, the bishops identified some areas where further clarification is needed and agreed to continue work on a letter to the Church summarising LLF and setting out an agreed position.
Bishops recognised the deep hurt, particularly to LGBTQI+ people, as a result of those decisions.
The House will meet again in January to finalise the text of the letter – which will take the form of a statement from the House.
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, who chairs the LLF Programme Board, said: “Although we recognise that having not set out a final decision today may add to the frustration and distress many people are feeling, it is important we take proper care and time on this. That is needed.
“We remain on course to bring proposals to Synod for consideration in February.”
‘Deep hurt’ – not half- LGBTQ+ people were promised ‘radical inclusion’. Yet broken promises characterise the HoB on safeguarding and sexuality. As a single gay man I don’t have much skin in the game. The people I feel most sorry for are the clergy and potential ordinands who’d like to marry their same sex partner. Lay people can get married in Aberdeen and in the not too distant future probably Abergavenny. Quite why younger LGBTQI + people bother with the CofE I’ve no idea. It was cruel to march a vulnerable minority up to the top of the hill only… Read more »
Is there any possibility that we can finally wrap our heads around this? T,Q,I,A add as many plusses as you like people are included by the Church of England, they are free both to marry in church and to minister. The only people who are currently not included are those who marry a same sex partner, which they may not do in church, neither may they minister afterwards. Why do so many people now insist on using this clunky collection of letters in place of language that accurately describes what we actually mean? Maybe a moratorium is a good idea… Read more »
Jane I have read your comments about this before and I am afraid I find it very confusing and an obfuscation of what is really going on. The letters might be annoying to some, and might not have equal weight and so on. But the fact remains that people who are same sex attracted and wish to have a partner with whom they have an intimate relationship are increasingly unwelcome in the Church of England. It surely can not have escaped your notice that since the Jeffrey John debacle over 20 years ago that a particularly strong and powerful constituency… Read more »
Andrew, yes, you have indeed misread me if you think I’m resisting moves to include gay people in the life of the church. I can’t imagine how you could have reached that conclusion from anything I’ve ever posted. I believe that gay people in stable, loving, faithful relationships should be able both to marry their same sex partners and to fulfil their vocations to public ministry. I am however being driven slowly bonkers by the absurd LGBTQIA+++ acronym and the factually untrue assertion that these are all people excluded from the life of the church. Do we not have enough… Read more »
Dear Jane: I can’t speak for the Church of England. All I can say is that in my part of the Anglican Church of Canada—the Diocese of Edmonton—there is a working group with responsibility for overseeing LGBTQI+ inclusion in the diocese. At an educational event before I retired, that group—which is made up largely of LGBTQI+ people—explained that designation to us, spelling out the importance of each letter (by the way, we have two more in our part of the world – 2S for ‘two-spirit’, an indigenous designation for gay people), and encouraging us to use it. I don’t know… Read more »
Whilst I disagree with Jayne Charman on this issue, I have always valued Jane’s posts for the way that she carefully explains her thinking. So I can agree with one part of her argument, These multiple letter designator can become confusing and almost a barrier to understanding. What started off as LGB expanded as other people began to discover linked dispositions. LGB became LGBQTIA+, for very good reasons, and even LGBTQIA2S in places which value indigenous inclusion with their different cultural understandings. But that can become confusing and daunting for people to get their head around. I think it would… Read more »
Simon, after my last comment I had a (previously scheduled) visit with my dear friend who is a leading member of the diocesan ‘Queerly Beloved’ working group I mentioned above. I’m not sure if all the members of the group are 2SLGBTQI+, but it would definitely be a majority. He says that the consensus of the group is still in favour of using the designation. So I really don’t know what Jane wants people like me to do. The people most directly affected have told the rest of the diocese what they want. Until they change their mind, I’m going… Read more »
Tim, I think you are exactly right. The church should pay attention to how members of the queer community have asked to be labelled. That only shows respect. But it behoves us within the community to be aware that this labelling can be confusing, and to offer accessible guidance and support to help people understand the issues involved. From your first post it sounds that they are getting it right in your neck of the woods. I suspect there is a generational change in play here. The LGBTQIA+ definition which many of us have grown up with and value is… Read more »
Tim, assuming that ‘what does Jane want people like me to do’ is not just a rhetorical question I will try to answer it. I would like us all to pay more attention to appropriate boundaries between what is private and personal and what is public and social. One of the things postmodernism seems to do is to pull everything inside out like a glove, seeking to make the private public and the public private, elevating feelings to facts and demoting facts to feelings. It’s fascinating to observe but also concerning in its implications for those aspects of our common… Read more »
if anybody asked me to explain what each of the symbols in LGBQTIA+ represented, I would struggle. Partly because I don’t care. I attempted at a large oil company to reduce the number of TLA’s (Three Letter Acronyms) and failed. Anybody who thinks all members of LGBQTIA+ are of one mind needs to get out more. Your comments on facts v. feelings, seem very relevant. We suffer immensely from this in the political sphere. Just been reading the facts on immigration and crime. When age adjusted, the facts change dramatically. On private v, public it is similar to the phrase… Read more »
As someone who is transgender – no, I don’t feel welcomed or “free”; those who are against same-sex marriage are frequently those who are transphobic as well. I left my previous church after my vicar went out of his way to tell me he was unsupportive of transgender people, and I’m under no delusions that he would support gay people, either. The reason LGBT+ people are all in this together is because our troubles are linked. Someone who’s homophobic, unaccepting of gay people and thinks their relationships are “sinful” is unlikely to be supportive of transgender people. There was a… Read more »
I think it’s beyond “absurd” that you, Jane, believe that it is “T,Q,I,A add as many plusses as you like people” who are somehow holding back same-sex couples/same-sex ordinands from getting married in the CofE.
The “LGB [only]” crowd are effectively TOOLS for homophobic (as well as transphobic) Anglicans to hold ALL queer Anglicans back from multiple sacraments of the Church. Why can’t you see that? Is your rage that a person w/ a Y chromosome might be peeing in a stall in a women’s restroom somewhere that all-encompassing? I just don’t understand…
Andrew, your second para. Alleluia! Yet there are others less strident in the CofE who, while not biblicist or homophobic, are wary of ‘bespoke’ PLF following a similar trajectory to the Order for Prayer and Dedication after Civil Marriage, which – it could be said – opened the way to the remarriage of divorcees in church. While most I suspect now see that development as a positive move, nonetheless I detect a hesitancy in the pews over the Church solemnizing same-sex marriage – and this in a parish church well known for its welcome to gay individuals and couples, not… Read more »
Allan. I find your second paragraph here enlightening. You describe a “hesitancy” in the pews about the idea of same sex marriage, but a hesitancy which people cannot verbalise in terms of scripture, tradition or reason. I think you are right, and this is a valuable insight. This unconscious hesitancy or discomfort is real, and needs to be acknowledged and discussed. But what is the source of such hesitancy? When I was working in the armed forces and as a sports coach decades ago then one of the arguments against gay inclusion was the discomfort felt by certain straight men… Read more »
Simon, thank you for this and for the characteristic grace with which you say it. Having queried Mandy Ford on a parallel thread, I must commend this incisive insight in her piece: “it seems that male leaders are most exercised by the practices of other men than they are bothered by what two women might do in private.” Such feelings are often more visceral than intellectual, and thus harder to work through.
Allan, thanks also for your positive reception of my post. I often think that we ignore the emotional and psychological, to our cost. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first? Did theological study lead to discomfort at the idea of gay marriage. Or did discomfort about the idea of gay marriage lead to people quoting theological objection? Whilst there are people in the church within both categories, I would argue that a significant number of people have found themselves made uncomfortable by something, such as the thought of gay marriage, and so they have sought for… Read more »
PS. I should add that the ‘hesitants’ I described are mostly female.
Plenty of trans folk are gay, or are straight but perceived as gay by people who refuse to accept their gender identity. Besides which, while marriage equality has totemic status in terms of the “rules” of the church, it is a piece of a much larger picture of what “radical inclusion” looks like, and trans people in particular are seeing the consequences both of the bleed over of secular transphobia into the church and the alignment of evangelicals with transphobic iterations of Christianity largely cooked up in the US. It seems like you’re using a lot of words to justify… Read more »
Jesus didn’t mention “radical inclusion “ in his teaching. He also didn’t mention transphobia and homophobia and all the other phobias modern society seems to be obsessed with.
I would think, as an implied term, radical faith was mentioned a number of times. It seems to me a certain branch of the church will never be satisfied with whatever radical revision idea is presented, campaigned for and legislated for. They will always find something else unconnected to the Christian fundamentals of faith to be unhappy about.
Jesus may not have used the term “radical inclusion” (in whatever language he spoke). But he is reported as saying this: Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. … But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. (Luke 6.20,21,24,25, NRSV) And Matthew’s… Read more »
And, your point is?
It’s a tragedy then that it took 2000 years to recognise and translate these words of scripture to encompass the “I want” society?
I may weep because my football team never wins but, in the biblical context, Jesus wasn’t covering this aspect of my sorrow in his address. Neither is he advocating everything a certain segment of the C of E demand just because they want it.
The good news that the kingdom of God is (to use the jargon) “radically inclusive”. The poor, the outcast, the dispossessed, the hungry, the sorrowful — these are the people who will be lifted up, whilst those who lord it over others and exploit them will be cast down from their seats and sent empty away. And each of us can help make this happen. It’s a messge that is both challenging and empowering.
Oh now you admit that people’s sexuality is unconnected to the “Christian fundamentals of faith”!
Jesus didn’t condemn slavery either, but it’s not exactly a moral or ethical leap from “love your neighbour as yourself” to opposing slavery and racism, as well as misogyny, homophobia and transphobia.
The coming of Jesus Christ delivers on God’s promise of peace, hope, salvation and joy. But it is also an offer of consolation – of comfort and strength through suffering. Whatever you might be struggling with this Christmas season, never forget that Jesus is more than a saviour; He’s also your consolation – through Christmas and beyond.
I am so glad that Jo B has pointed out that Jesus never condemned slavery. For a long time now I have campaigning for rhe official reintroduction of slavery – as well as concubinage, child labour, antisemitism, and drug taking, on which I can find not a word from Jesus in the Bible. It is ob3v, is it not, that if there is nothing in the Bible from Jesus on a certain subject, he must have approved of it?
Nice strawman you’ve erected there.
Jane, like Andrew Godsall, I too have read your comments on this subject before, and like Andrew I cannot agree with you, but for different reasons. As I understand it you want to split off the issue of transgender rights from the issue of homosexual/lesbian/gay rights and treat them as different issues. I can understand that from a woman’s perspective then the idea of a trans-woman coming into what are considered to be female spaces can raise questions. But there has to be balance in this debate, balancing the needs of cis-gendered women against the needs of trans-gendered women. Both… Read more »
Are bisexual people really welcome in the CofE? Are people who choose to identify as queer really welcome? I don’t know whether you identify as anything other than straight but if not it’s patronising to criticise our lettering. It feels as though you’re trying to erase us and our status as a persecuted minority in the CofE. The organisation is institutionally homophobic, you seem uncomfortable with that reality. I’ve been out throughout my 30 years of ministry and there has been a price to pay for my honesty, though not I have to say from my parishioners. As to your… Read more »
From organising support groups I can tell you that including all the letters is vitally important. By now you may be certain of your identity but people who are just coming out, particularly young adults, often don’t know whether they are gay, bi, trans, nb, queer or whatever. As the right wing makes it harder for schools to cover the topic fully, that’s getting even more the case. Older lesbians seem particularly guilty of not understanding that young people need the breadth to decide what they are without pressure from people who should be their peers. So if a group… Read more »
Very well put Fr Dean, I could not agree more.
LGBTQ+ people were not promised ‘radical inclusion’. We were all promised “a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church… founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology”. The Inclusive Church chose to ignore the second part of this call and used it to justify pushing forward every change at General Synod without the necessary work having been done on canon law, practical details and especially the theological undergirding. Now that has finally been made public it’s clear that ‘radical inclusion’ cannot mean “liberalisation at all costs, including disregarding the sincerely-held objections of ‘traditionalists’ ”.
The Church of England goes to great lengths to accommodate the sincerely-held objections of “traditionalists” have not been disregarded. The proposal has always been that ministers will have a discretion whether to use PLF. No one will be required to do so.
In exactly the same way, ministers have a discretion as to whether they remarry divorcees within the lifetime of their former spouses (and some will not in any circumstances).
Churches can refuse to have women ministers. The Church Commissioners pay for five bishops to minister to such churches
“In Christ there is no male or female”: radical inclusion IS Tradition!
I will contest homophobes and transphobes trying to appropriate “Tradition” to themselves. Homophobic/transphobic oppression are MODERN phenomenons: reactions to LGBTQ+ people claiming equality—in law and, more importantly, in Christ.
I won’t be holding my breath over this. The House of Bishops clearly can’t come to a common mind (a number of the usual suspects will be absolutely against that and are likely plotting to prevent it) and have once again kicked LLF temporarily (hopefully) into the long grass of the Christmas break. Let’s enjoy turkey and fine wine in the meantime and start worrying again in January. But let’s hope they have woken up to the overwhelmingly negative response to the LLF pause. By stating they will be bringing “proposals” (see OED) they have at least committed to a… Read more »
The diversionary exercise known as LLF etc was launched when a statement from the Bishops was considered so inadequate that Synod “declined to take note”! Would it be fitting that when the Bishops finally try to give LLF its formal burial, that Synod once again repeat that procedure to tell the Bishops that they are still on the wrong side of history? More generally, after 25 years of trying to be an LGBTQI+ ally, I must draw attention to the irrefutable fact that the Conservative Evangelical constituency has never acted in good faith. I am sure that many individuals have… Read more »
It may help if all parties respected the views of those with whom they disagree.
Remember the poor bishops have such difficult decisions to make. They have to have to have a half an eye all the time on Reform in the Church, especially when the country and Church is under the leadership of the much heralded soon to be Prime Minister, with his huge base of support within parishes throughout the country. Also GB News pays really well for content, longs to see proper Christian values re-established in the UK, and looks poised to quickly replace other failing and bankrupted fake news outlets. This will become a really important platform for the bishops to… Read more »
Good point! And maybe they will soon abolish the bothersome string of letters and + signs which cause right minded folk such problems . Watch out for something catchy like D and MI
( Different and Morally Inferior)
I’m afraid I can’t see anything for the long grass all around.
Reminds me of the Apartheid government in its last years.desperately trying to reform apartheid…Archbishop Tutu said..reforming aparthied was like rearranging tin cans in a wheel barrow.