Following the October announcement from the House of Bishops regarding the effective halting of the LLF process and a change of direction from the discussion towards and votes taken for fuller LGBTQ+ inclusion, Inclusive Church wrote an Open Letter and invited those who wished to be included as a signatory to it, to do so. People were asked to provide their name and home postcode, with the option to also add their title, the name of their church and an estimate of the size of their regular church congregation. The letter was available for one month, with no external media coverage, publicity through diocesan channels or paid promotion.
The full text of the letter is copied below the fold.
Inclusive Church has now issued a press release reporting on the nearly 7000 signatures received, which you can read here. (now in PDF format)
And there is a further much more detailed analysis available here.
We, the undersigned, are clergy and lay members of the Church of England, deeply disappointed by the recent decisions of the House of Bishops regarding the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF)[1] and by the continued absence of a clear pathway for clergy to enter same-sex marriages.
We affirm publicly that:
Recent surveys and votes in General Synod have consistently shown that the majority of those within the Church of England now seek greater inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ+ people[4]. It is not right that these voices remain unheard, nor that the Church continues to inflict the pain of exclusion and rejection on LGBTQ+ people, their friends, families and allies.
The Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process has received significant investment of time, money, prayer, theology and discernment. It has engaged deeply with scripture, tradition and reason, whilst seeking to also listen to lived experience. We do not support coercion or silencing of any view, but rather commit to open, honest and compassionate dialogue that honours individual conscience and fully hears the call to love one another as Christ has loved us.
We call on the House of Bishops to offer leadership and direction that honours the inclusive majority of the Church of England and truly values LGBTQ+ people. We speak now, not in defiance, but because we live in love and faith, believing that the Church is at her best when we love courageously and listen deeply. We stand together in faith, hope, and love trusting that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.
[1] https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/update-living-love-and-faith-october-2025
[2] Resolution of General Synod, February 2023 http://churchofengland.org/resources/living-love-and-faith/bishops-response-living-love-and-faith
[3] Prayers of Love and Faith http://churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/prayers-of-love-and-faith.pdf
[4] These include the Times survey of CofE clergy Aug 2023; survey of Anglicans including laity Feb 2023 and the Are You In survey from Inclusive Church in Autumn 2024.
I do not want to be a member of a church in which there are first and second class priests or first and second class human beings. We are all equal in the sight of God and we should all be equally welcome at God’s table. If we are all equally welcome then our love for a same sex partner should be equally welcome and celebrated. What sort of God of Love would create people with the need to love someone of their own gender and then deny them the right to express it ? The Bible says God created… Read more »
It’s got nothing to do with hatred. Inclusive church is another cul-de-sac and the exercise proves little. Not getting your own way and distorting theology just goes around in circles. Nothing to do with Gods love.
A thoughtful response must begin by affirming that every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and is of infinite worth. The Church must never treat anyone as a “second-class human being.” Christ Himself shows unqualified love toward all, calling us His friends (John 15:15). But Christian teaching has always made a distinction between the worth of persons and the rightness of behaviours. Scripture frequently calls the Church to welcome all people while still proclaiming God’s design for holy living: • “Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you” (Romans 15:7) — yet Paul also… Read more »
Thank you for this calm, measured summary. I disagree with your conclusion but agree that this is the honest conclusion that may well be reached within your paradigm. My challenge to it is 1. Do we not normally see the harm that could result from proscribed acts (“sins”)? Indeed that’s why they have come to be seen as sinful. The Bible was not dictated by God but discerned by human beings. What is the harm in faithful monogamous same sex relationships? None, as far as I can see. (Why did we ever think it was sinful? Perhaps association with homosexual… Read more »
The founder of our faith said ‘I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished‘. The authority is there. The ongoing request from Jesus, now as much as in the first century, is to be led into all truth by the spirit. And that involves reflecting on scripture rigorously, and discerning its meaning in totality in the conditions of modernity. Scripture is innately supernatural. It involves burning bushes that talk, seas that open up, angels appearing to shepherds,… Read more »
This is not the only way to read Scripture and this way definitely causes harm- which is one reason (there are others) to consider a different way.
Which way?
By not treating it as literature in a category of its own but reading it as you would any other ancient, convoluted, contradictory, historical documents. That doesn’t stop it being inspiring.
Thanks Nigel, very helpful. I may be an untypical conservative evangelical, but I do read scripture as ancient historical documents, sometimes convoluted and in some ways contradictory, often with a degree of redaction.
That doesn’t stop them being inspiring or inspired. It does mean the church has to apply the full weight of its spiritual and intellectual resources to discern their full meaning and God’s vision for the world. It has always had to – it’s what Jesus asked us to do at the last supper.
Thanks. Another thing that occurred to me in the shower this morning (another place where inspiration is found) is that we actually have a clear example in the Gospels of how to treat Scripture and its rules. Jesus breaks the law of the sabbath (plucking wheat because they were hungry) and argues with those who would quote verses at him by saying that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. The same logic can surely be applied to biblical injunctions on sexuality? The harm done by inflexibility here is even clearer and greater than that… Read more »
Jesus said the sabbath is made for your benefit not that it doesn’t matter. Marriage is made for the benefit of children so they can grow up with a mother and a father. (Mal 2:15) but in Matthew 15 He tells us not only what doesn’t matter but also what does matter.
Exactly. Many evangelicals are conservative socially as well as theologically. I certainly am. But the more I read the gospels, the more I find that JC really isn’t. It’s not that He’s a socialist or a libertarian or something, just completely different. As a non-theologian, I still think the way of resolving this is to reflect more and more on the character and calling of Christ. What does He want for the world, for people and for the church? I don’t think the church needs to abandon believing in and acting on God’s word, in fact it needs to act… Read more »
Thankyou. I think you are describing what theological liberals do. It’s not, as we are sometimes accused, that we abandon scripture and tradition in order to follow the world. Well that’s what i mean when i describe myself as liberal anyway.
I increasingly think conservative/liberal identity is a starting point, not a destination. If you take the most rigorously conservative approach you can to understanding Jesus’ call to discipleship in the world, you have to engage with scriptures as authentically historic documents and with the world as it is. And if you start by more openly exploring scripture, you encounter the same Jesus, the same call and the same world.
I hope you have never eaten a plate of prawns. ( Leviticus 11 v 9-12)
Or have a building society account or wear clothes of mixed fibres.
Prawns are forbidden at that point. Polygamy for its part is sometimes presented as entirely normal but not forbidden as a general practice anywhere from end to end of the scriptures, and I would see the story of Jacob as an argument for polygamy – a real man needs different women for different purposes – against the monogamy of the Greeks, with whom the Jews and Samaritans were coming into contact at the relevant time. Odysseus and Penelope, you and me through thick and thin, are not from Israelite culture
Martin, one wonders if a re phrasing of your comment may be in order after a read back ? A good sub editor of Academic Theology would consider a judicious edit would be in order pre pub ?
i think the substance is of some relevance and importance though
Agree the point is fine and relevant, the real man …. Comment could have been read out of the historical context .
Thank you, Andrew, for such a helpful and faithful unfolding of the message of Jesus, and the Christian Scriptures.
Thanks for writing with such gentleness and humility; in a debate that has often been fractious and judgemental we need more contributions that adopt this tone.
“From the beginning, Scripture presents marriage as a male–female covenant rooted in creation itself”. No. Marriage is a product of the Fall. It was not intended to be part of Creation. Adam and Eve were intended to be companions not husband and wife.
What strikes me about the teaching, and the teaching style, of Jesus is that he rarely presented things in black and white terms. Even if you think that most same sex couples should not marry, isn’t it possible that there are exceptions which should be supported by the Church, even by those with a conservative outlook?
No. Absolutely not Kate. Sorry.
Excellent response. Says everything that needs to be said in the language that needs to be used. Thank you.
Is it clear that non-literal unity of flesh, an outer manifestation of unity of spirit, cannot be obtained by partners of the same sex?
Thanks Andrew – a helpful overview of the argument, but it does also show up some of the problems. You say that the Church understands sexual intimacy as a vocation. Even if that is so, it’s hard to see Scripture taking the same view. Instead, in Scripture sexual intimacy and marriage is presented in very practical terms: in Genesis 2 marriage comes about because God observes that it is not good for man to be alone; in 1 Corinthians 7 St Paul argues it is better to marry than burn with passion; and in 1 Timothy 5 young widows are… Read more »
For a much stronger message to the bishops about the lack of LLF progress there is this sermon by the very Rev’d Joe Hawes, Dean of Edmundsbury Cathedral.
The sermon starts shorty after minute 25.00 in the recording.
I would recommend it as an insight from an insider, somebody who is himself homosexual in a long term relationship, who has worked diligently on LLF for many years, and who has now lost patience with both the process and the bishops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCtrWgSLc3s&t=1515s
I second that recommendation. A courageous and important sermon from Dean Joe, who has spent decades in great patience hoping that it wouldn’t be needed, whilst working tirelessly for the reconciliation and unity that we grieve still eludes us.
Thanks for this. It gives me a bigger understanding about why the LLF controversy is using up so much oxygen there, including on TA. . I like the use of the analogy of breathing in and out for repentance, including by the church. The Dean’s insights have wider applications. Instance the latest ‘mistification’
(as in, mist) from the Vatican about no female deacons. I’ve sent the link around to some folks here whom I know will be interested.
Text version available here https://togethercofe.org.uk/dean-of-st-edmundsbury-speaks-out-on-lgbt-inclusion/
I found it profoundly disappointing. Sorry to disappoint the many on TA that constantly rejoice in following the fracturing of the National Church.
Nobody rejoices in the fracturing of the church, but you’re the ones threatening to leave if you don’t get to enforce your views on everyone else.
I wonder if the bishops – in a possibly rare moment of insight – worked out that they simply weren’t going to have a sufficiently coherent body of Christ around them for their ministry of oversight to have much meaning. That if they went ahead with a fundamentally contradictory project: ‘Gay sex can be celebrated and blessed – No!! Gay sex is sin and requires repentance – just take your pick, you pay your money and you make your choice’, then ‘being church’ would simply have so little substance that their role and status as foci of unity and upholders… Read more »
The church has simultaneously managed to contain opposing views on matters of far greater spiritual import than who falls in love with who – Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament being considered a blessing by some and idolatry by others, for example. Heck, a fair chunk of those objecting to the blessing of same sex relationships don’t even accept the three-fold order of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and another chunk think a huge slice of Holy Communion services in the CofE are invalid because they’re celebrated by women. Even in the parallel situation of remarriage after divorce the CofE has managed… Read more »
“Your the ones” sound like a pigeon hole. “Enforce your views” sounds dictatorial.
Let’s leave the rules, as imperfect as they are, in place. Those who do not accept Terms and conditions ( as in most transactions) should do something else.
Why belong to something that makes you so angry?
As St Augustine is supposed to have said: Ecclesia semper reformanda est.
A core motto of the Protestant Reformation emphasising that the Christian Church needs continuous internal renewal to align with God’s Word, not cultural trends.
So God’s Word is constantly changing?
’Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.’
That is conforming to God’s will, not his word. Even so, that we have to keep discerning it, rather than just relying on one act of discernment, suggests that God’s will is somewhat Protean, doesn’t it?
Keep on ‘processing the process’ it seems is what keeps Inclusive Church busy these days. But in the meantime any idea of a conscience clause somehow being sufficient to keep a protean church together is for the birds and structural differentiation is now the only way forward for the church.
Would you like to explain how ‘one act of discernment’ would establish God’s will on everything for ever? When would this all encompassing act take place? And who would do it? For example, would you expect St Peter in a single act of discernment in AD40 or so to establish God’s will about nuclear bombs, AI, genetically modified foods, antibiotics, global warming, space travel, motor transport, electricity, acid rain, holes in the ozone layer, the film industry, the best funding model for the NHS, and whether He thinks the Beatles are any good? Obviously not. That’s why we are continually… Read more »
It’s a bit late for that. Did you know that there are over 44,000 Christian denominations across the world? The fracturing has already happened because we are imperfect beings.
Why would you say that anyone is rejoicing in the fracturing of the church? Given Jesus’ teaching on unity it’s quite an accusation. What’s the evidence for the rejoicing?
Thanks for the link Simon. I rarely bother to listen to a sermon now, I cannot remember the last time time I entered a church for worship, it was pre-covid, but I joined the congregation in applause from my computer in my bedroom. I guess typical of a guy in his early 80’s, I am spending time reading my diaries which I have kept since 1960. Besides wondering at the energy I had, I am amazed to read where I was the chief speaker at youth house parties, counselled at Billy Graham crusades, taught scripture in my free periods in… Read more »
I recall your interesting blog recounting your move away from Sydney Anglican insanity to a more normal way of life.
I agree about the fairy tale comment (applying to much but not all of it) but I’m intrigued that you’re spending time at Thinking Anglicans…
Where are the signatures to this open Letter? I can’t find them anywhere.
Without the signatures being publidhed, the “open letter” looks like a political gesture with unsupported claims.
Where are the signatures?
The same place as the names of the “Alliance”‘s supporters who they claim represent a large chunk of the church, perhaps?
Did the Alliance conceal the names of any Public Letter they issued? I don’t think so. Perhaps you have other imformation?
Especially as they encouraged people to sign on behalf of groups without giving any names, just a total number of members. A suggested example on their sign up page is “All Saints Choir (18)”
Have you read the ‘detailed analysis’ above? It is hardly an unsupported political gesture. Nor does it take much pastorlal imagination to consider why the list of signatories has not been made public – while also going to significant lengths to demonstrate a careful analysis and a transparent process. On their website Inclusive Church says it has ‘has sent the Open Letter and the list of signatories to the Archbishop of York, Archbishop-designate of Canterbury, each Diocese in the Church of England and to Helen Fraser the lead on LLF.’ The letter itself is completely open and those it is… Read more »
Not good enough, David.
An ‘Open Letter’ is the same as a Public Petition.
It is not a Private Letter – it is a public communication. Sothose who signed it should treat it just the same as a Public Petition. A letter that doesn’t contain signatures is the same as a Political Gesture.
James you cannot see the signatories because the letter was not written to you. Nor can I but I don’t have a problem with that. Those who received it not only know the 7000 names, they know their diocese, church membership and ministry roles in the CofE. It is for them to decide it it good enough. Meanwhile if you really do not know why many LGBT+ people and their allies still do not feel it is safe to reveal their names in this context you are part of the problem.
Hi James, Thanks for noticing this. I know IC looks like a huge organisation (1000 churches!), but in reality we have 0.8 staff, and volunteer capacity very much hit by Advent activity (as is right and proper). Our team have done very well to get the emails out and key documents on the site – please bear with us with regard to the list(s). Diolch, Fr Dan (Vice Chair of trustees, Inclusive Church network)
Now available here, with apologies for the delay: https://www.inclusive-church.org/llf-open-letter/
I signed, and almost certainly (I can’t recall) put down Chichester Cathedral as my affiliation, so that clears up the one signature attributed to that place. Hope that helps.
I find the fact that over 1900 clergy signed the letter very significant. This issue is not going to go away any time soon. Eventually the Bishops will need to find a way of allowing both liberals and conservatives to follow their own consciences. Until then this issue will fester like an untreated wound.
That was the solution in Scotland. The problem is that conservatives only accept individual conscience when it’s their own. Everyone else is just expected to conform, conscience be damned.
So 1900 clergy are doctrinally bereft in supporting this hybrid strand of the C of E. Why should this have any sway at all? If you recall 44 Bishops signed the 2023 letter ( we all know which letter) and we are now where we are so letter signing was futile and ill judged.
‘we all know which letter’
Please don’t assume that. Not all of us on this site live in the UK, and sometimes it’s difficult for us ‘foreigners’ to keep up with all the political goings-on.
I am certain that if you follow the C of E soap opera, LLF, you would be aware that 44 Bishops signed a letter calling for blessings for same sex couples in stand alone services and also immediate rescinding of the prohibition of homosexual clergy officiating in the church. This was in 2023 and the C of E has never recovered and in all probability it never will.
Here. https://www.inclusive-church.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Open-Letter-Diocese-Lists-FULL-NBs-12.25.pdf
Some of the diocesan allocations are a little haphazard!
It is interesting to hear from those whose high-minded views, such as “sexual intimacy is a specific vocation rather than a general right” and “the distinction between the worth of persons and the rightness of behaviours,” seem so tidy and reasonable, but are in reality used as a sledgehammer against anyone who does not conform to “male-female covenant.” Scripture, as always, being used to support these views, as they choose to read it. It’s so pious, so clear, and yet so uncaring, condescending, and inhuman. How do people, who say such things with such a sense of their utter rightness,… Read more »
I see from a recent study that human beings have a better score for monogamy than meerkats but they are not as faithful and loving as the Californian deermouse. Since we are part of the natural world, it seems preposterous that God wrote an instruction manual for part of His creation, whilst allowing some illiterate creatures to behave like sex maniacs.
To make an obvious point, David … If you encountered an illiterate lion in the wild, it would eat you. An illiterate snake would poison you and/or strangle you. And an illiterate rhino would trample you into the earth.
I’d bet quite a lot of money you wouldn’t want God to get rid of his instructions stopping your fellow men from doing the same things.
It’s silly, of course, to say God writes instructions! That’s a concept held by judgemental evangelicals. I’m happy to accept God created snakes and lions which might kill me. But I’m not sure why He created such dangerous creatures as rhinos, tigers and humans, illiterate or not.
A good question. The leopard will lie down with the lamb. For now, creation is a work in progress, loosely paraphrasing St Paul. We’re all called to work on it – liberals, catholics, even the occasional judgmental evangelical, all people of good will, maybe animals too, and the plants. That means new things happen. Sometimes not as fast as we’d like. But they will, with work.
But being “not sure” appears to be your modus operandi. Hence you relinquish truth and embrace modernity and non conformity of historical teaching.
This is the most miserable of threads. I really struggle with so many of you. I don’t attend church very often these days because of my disquiet over the lack of proper safeguarding and the homophobic and misogynistic wrangling engulfing the organisation but I attended a very moving Requiem Eucharist yesterday conducted by another of East Anglia’s excellent deans We were read StJohn 15.vv9-17 as the Gospel, and there was no asterisk on the service sheet to a footnote saying Christ may have said this but it wasn’t what He meant. … I took Communion and left feeling comforted. Today… Read more »
Sexual intimacy, so long as it is mutually enjoyed, not ‘predatory’ and not damaging to partners or the public good, is very much a universal right. Just as is the enjoyment of the food that God gave us to eat and of the air he gave us to breathe
A very angry appraisal that just repeats the new 21st century theology that aligns revisionist doctrine with societal evolution. Sure enough, it took a few paragraphs, but the accusation of “bigotry “ eventually flowed as it always does in this fruitless exposition. Needless to say, I think you are incorrect.
Don;t know where to post this – but I see channel 4 is broadcasting about Smyth this evening at 9pm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jna-nDFpBUU
We will publish an article about these TV programmes after their transmission.
Thanks.
I thought the analysis of the signatories of the Inclusive Church open letter provided in their summary report was helpful and useful. But I would hypothesise that the numbers they provide probably underestimate support for the so-called “inclusive” side. In my case, I was aware of the letter but did not sign because I felt it did not go far enough. For example, in terms of Inclusive Church’s commending of the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith. I myself see these prayers as inadequate at best, and insulting at worst. So I think a better approach is for… Read more »
Thanks for this, Charles. We are aware of many friends who have declined to sign for similar reasons, and we’re hoping to communicate that point to the bishops too. (I myself, were I in England, might not have signed.)
I agree with Charles Clapham that PLF is inadequate, although in reality the choice was either nothing or a suite of prayers constrained by the injunction that they must not resemble marriage. The resultant lack of content has left them a tabula rasa vulnerable to the priority of lived experience. Liturgy should shape lives and communities, not just affirm personal experience. A fully worked-out liturgy is needed, not as pastoral accommodation but a public rite that affirms the vocational and covenantal personality of committed same-sex relationships; and, as couples are ‘persons in relationship’, that blesses both the individuals and their… Read more »
Although I maintain close and happy links with local Anglican churches, I stopped working for the Anglican Church to join a church that warmly celebrates same sex marriage. From my point of view, PLF is very thin gruel indeed. I’m not even sure who really thinks it’s a solution to anything, but I’m pleased there are still those of you working on the inside to bring about change. I am an ally who has seen far too many LGBTQIA+ friends and acquaintances deeply damaged by the practices of the CofE and a fearful leadership that increasingly seems to be moving… Read more »
Disagreeing isn’t the same as abuse. Once again it’s all about being a victim. There has been abuse of faithful orthodox believers but we tend not be calling ourselves victims.
Indeed. For starters you keep abusing faithful, orthodox believers by calling us apostates.
I take your point, but there is a certain pragmatism needed in any such letter. I don’t hear you saying you disagree with the direction of travel in this letter – more that is does not go far enough. But it is equally likely that there are those who signed here but would not have felt able to sign something more robust. So I think they pitched it right.
Please may we have the list of signatories to the Open Letter
https://www.inclusive-church.org/llf-open-letter/
as noted in an earlier comment
I’m confused by the summary report, which has a total of 3,001 churches represented, and then includes a bar chart of church sizes on p10 which totals somewhere north of 5,500 churches.
The open letter can surely only reflect the opinion of those who signed it rather than reflecting the views of the churches which they attend. They might have been many who were asked to sign in those churches who didn’t because they disagree with PLF and Stand alone services for same sex couples. 6000 “signatures” at best probably represents 1% of those attending the Church of England’s churches on a Sunday. So while accepting those people feel they strongly want their voice to be heard this letter cannot be considered strong evidence as to the opinion of the Church as… Read more »
Equally, the list of names certainly does not include a great many individuals who would have happily signed if they had known about it, as well as those who support its message but felt unable to sign for whatever reason (some of which reasons have already been mentioned). The number of signatories provides merely a lower bound.
Hardly anyone who could do, does ever sign these sorts of letters; I don’t think that one should be dismissive of them nevertheless. Actually a one per cent response rate is one that would get most social science researchers very excited. 6000 signatories must be approaching the top of what a Church of England open letter could hope to achieve (and no, that’s not a challenge). If it’s viewed in those terms (rather than a proportion of the total of worshippers) it’s quite an impressive achievement to have a letter signed by so many and it would be a foolish… Read more »
Why do you say that ( untenable)?It’s not a competition. You seem to be convincing yourself that there is indeed a case for rebellion to bring about liberalisation and so destroying centuries of communion. Strongly held beliefs don’t equate to righteousness however you present the whims of a rebellious sub group.
Well, possibly, but although there’s one signatory from my old parish, and thus it appears on the list of churches, PCC was enthusiastically and unanimously behind the decision to join Inclusive Church, as was everyone I can think of in the congregation who seemed to have any opinion at all on the matter. I imagine they weren’t the only such congregation on the list.
Unless a church follows the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of Scripture then it is no longer Christian but CINO (Christian in Name Only) and no miracles will take place in the church.
Quite right, Sidney. Like ‘Sell all your possessions and come, follow me?’ Or the one about wealth and camels and needles? It’s always troubled me that the figurehead of the HTB movement in his former existence specialised in tax avoidance advice (A modern day ‘Corban’ defence is no doubt available). Please clarify under which circumstances we might divorce t’missus. Jesus said a lot about hypocrisy, but (as Diarmaid MacCulloch observed in a recent lecture up here) the Church didn’t burn any hypocrites at the stake. ‘Never trust a Church with a large car park,’ as Jesus said (in a late… Read more »