on Tuesday, 2 June 2026 at 10.37 am by Peter Owen
categorised as Church of England, News
The minutes of the January 2026 and December 2025 meetings of the Church of England’s House of Bishops are now available. Earlier minutes can be found here.
Subscribe
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Dr John Wallace
20 days ago
Not sure, sadly, how much of this is relevant to our mission to preach the Gospel (in its widest terms – not just ‘Jesus saves’). It seems so overlaid with ecclesiastical bureaucracy! Perhaps there shoud be an ecclesiastical ‘geek’ committee that deals with this and lets the Bishops as a whole focus on Mission and then rubber stamp.
I can’t see much of the Holy Spirit in this
I T
19 days ago
From the January minutes “ 4.7 In the opening debate on the motion, members raised the following points: 4.7.1 That the Bishops of Sheffield and Oxford should be thanked for their work onthe statement which was now in a stronger place; 4.7.2 It was possible that there would be those who could not support the statement or the ideas within it. But it provided a basis for moving forward together; 4.7.3 That the process had involved bishops engaging in a process to allow LGBTQI+ members into the community of the Church;” Read that last one again. “Allowed” into the community.… Read more »
There are no words.
We are here, inside, and always have been. We don’t need anything other than the invitation of Jesus.
We are here, inside, even in the House of Bishops.
Did nobody at that meeting read that in draft and think how tin-eared, inaccurate, and patronising it was?
It appears from the wording of the minutes that, at the meeting, someone (presumably at least one bishop) actually said those words. Possibly, others responded, but that is not recorded. It seems very likely that a Question will be asked at the July synod, seeking clarification.
A further Question might be –
‘Would the Archbishop of Canterbury please instruct her Bishops to attend a diversity awareness training course at the earliest opportunity, with the aim of reducing the number of occasions on which they give gratuitous offence to LGBTQIA+ people?’
Being LGBTQIA+ is not a choice. Neither is it an illness. It is a natural part of human variety, made in the image of God.
Put simply: ‘Some people are gay – get over it, Bishops.’
Rowland Wateridge
17 days ago
It’s possible that IT and Jeremy Pemberton are mistaken in their interpretation. There’s a difference, and an important one, between ‘allowed’ as quoted by IT and “allow”, the word actually used, a different tense implying, to my mind, a reversal of earlier prejudice and exclusion. In other words, a potentially positive statement rather than the negative interpretation it has received here. No doubt there will be questions at General Synod, but the minutes make clear, more than once, that there was not total unanimity and this was a typical ‘compromise’ minute. While conceding that it might have been expressed better,… Read more »
Not sure, sadly, how much of this is relevant to our mission to preach the Gospel (in its widest terms – not just ‘Jesus saves’). It seems so overlaid with ecclesiastical bureaucracy! Perhaps there shoud be an ecclesiastical ‘geek’ committee that deals with this and lets the Bishops as a whole focus on Mission and then rubber stamp.
I can’t see much of the Holy Spirit in this
From the January minutes “ 4.7 In the opening debate on the motion, members raised the following points: 4.7.1 That the Bishops of Sheffield and Oxford should be thanked for their work onthe statement which was now in a stronger place; 4.7.2 It was possible that there would be those who could not support the statement or the ideas within it. But it provided a basis for moving forward together; 4.7.3 That the process had involved bishops engaging in a process to allow LGBTQI+ members into the community of the Church;” Read that last one again. “Allowed” into the community.… Read more »
There are no words.
We are here, inside, and always have been. We don’t need anything other than the invitation of Jesus.
We are here, inside, even in the House of Bishops.
Did nobody at that meeting read that in draft and think how tin-eared, inaccurate, and patronising it was?
It appears from the wording of the minutes that, at the meeting, someone (presumably at least one bishop) actually said those words. Possibly, others responded, but that is not recorded. It seems very likely that a Question will be asked at the July synod, seeking clarification.
A further Question might be –
‘Would the Archbishop of Canterbury please instruct her Bishops to attend a diversity awareness training course at the earliest opportunity, with the aim of reducing the number of occasions on which they give gratuitous offence to LGBTQIA+ people?’
Being LGBTQIA+ is not a choice. Neither is it an illness. It is a natural part of human variety, made in the image of God.
Put simply: ‘Some people are gay – get over it, Bishops.’
It’s possible that IT and Jeremy Pemberton are mistaken in their interpretation. There’s a difference, and an important one, between ‘allowed’ as quoted by IT and “allow”, the word actually used, a different tense implying, to my mind, a reversal of earlier prejudice and exclusion. In other words, a potentially positive statement rather than the negative interpretation it has received here. No doubt there will be questions at General Synod, but the minutes make clear, more than once, that there was not total unanimity and this was a typical ‘compromise’ minute. While conceding that it might have been expressed better,… Read more »