The Church of England’s House of Bishops met this week. A press release has been issued and is copied below.
House of Bishops meeting October 2025
08/10/2025
The House of Bishops met in person from October 6-8 in Cookham, Berkshire.
The House heard an update on the Makin Recommendations Task and Finish Group. The group, which includes independent safeguarding experts and survivors, was established following the publication of the Makin review to examine the report’s recommendations and enable them to be implemented.
The Group will now focus on collating the evidence that has been submitted and scrutinising the work the Church has undertaken, or plans to undertake, in response to the recommendations.
The House discussed a review of accountability for Bishops and other clergy commissioned by the Ministry Development Board (MDB). The work will provide a systematic review of accountability for bishops and other clergy to identify gaps in the current arrangements, note areas where there is a lack of clarity or ambiguity, and to identify and implement any solutions needed.
The House received an update from members of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) working groups, members of the LLF Programme Board and the Faith and Order Commission, along with legal advice.
Bishops spent time in groups and in plenary session discussing different areas of the current LLF proposals and the key elements which should be included in a Bishops’ Statement.
They considered possible legislative processes. The bishops made progress, with a view to reaching final decisions, when the House next meets in December, on proposals to bring to the General Synod in February 2026.
They also heard an update from the Ministry team on ordained vocations, including an overview of forecast changes to the population of clergy, with a particular focus on stipendiary clergy. The House considered clergy wellbeing and its impact on retention as well as the importance of fostering a culture that nurtures new vocations, and developing strategies to engage retired clergy. The House agreed to commission the national Data Services team to gather data on parochial vacancies and clergy leaving ministry.
The House reflected on their commitment to ensuring that church with a flourishing children, youth, and families’ ministry is within reach of every child and young person in England. They discussed the importance of young people being developed and empowered, supported by motivated leaders and youth workers. Bishops shared experiences of the success of targeted leadership programmes and ways to enable families to participate in different services across different traditions.
“and developing strategies to engage retired clergy.” Could this by any chance be connected to the projected stipendiary clergy numbers falling off a cliff? Question to those who follow these Bishops’ meetings closely: when was the last time retired clergy were discussed at one of these bishops meetings?
Have the bishops noticed that some retired clergy are reluctant to seek PTO, possibly because of the safeguarding training requirements? The assumption that retired clergy are a convenient source of backup may not be as true as it once was.
Yes, I know several retired clergy who, for various reasons, have decided not to seek PTO. And I know of not a few suitable individuals who have not been given authority under Canon E7, either because the diocese in question refuses to operate that canon or because of spurious reasons for refusal – the CoE has many suitable layfolk whom it refuses to use.
Love and kindness can only keep churches going for so long, but if there is no ‘fruit’ what’s the point, other than to be pruned to make room for the next generation, or in our case Gen Alpha who have completely taken over. Naughty rascals! But if there was no pruning (ie church closure) this would not have happened.
I think it’s not just clergy who have reached retirement age who no longer bother to seek PTO. I know a lot of clergy who are well below retirement age, but who have slipped away into better-remunerated employment elsewhere; or who were non-stipendiary all along and have just lost patience with the kind of routine power abuse that church high-ups operate as their normal mode of doing things; or who don’t much care to undergo compulsory patronising training in DEI or other fashionable nostrums just in order to help out somewhere unpaid from time to time… These are often highly… Read more »
For ‘developing startegies to engage retired clergy’ read ‘find words to describe taking advantage of and create and prevail upon feelings of guilt in tired retired clergy to come to the rescue of the church as effective units of resource to be used as and when required’? Other interpretations are possible..
They’re rather late in the day to be initiating this. While it’s true that retired clergy have often kept things afloat for the CofE, covering extended vacancies, occasional offices and holidays, I’m not sure this can be guaranteed into the future, many clergy are leaving due to burn out and lack of confidence and trust in the leadership. This doesn’t look likely to change any time soon – with fewer full time parish clergy the gaps in ministry may well become very much larger. However maybe some starting points would be to end the ridiculous parish extended vacancy ‘interregnum’ practice… Read more »
No mention in the minutes of a certain Archiepiscopal announcement last week. Surely it featured in their meeting as a top item?
The press release does not disclose whether, at the start of the meeting, the bishops voted to meet as ‘a Committee of the whole House’—i.e. in private—pursuant to standing order 14. We shall have to wait to see the minutes of the meeting, which won’t be until they are approved at the next meeting of the House. If, as I expect, they did agree to meet in private, it will be interesting, too, to see how many bishops voted against. It would also be interesting to know whether any of the bishops referred to my letter in The Times on… Read more »