The Church of England’s House of Bishops has issued a statement on Living in Love and Faith (9 pages).
There is also a covering press release which is copied in full below.
House of Bishops shares letter to the Church as Living in Love and Faith approaches conclusion
14/01/2026
The House of Bishops has shared a letter to the wider Church of England setting out an agreed position as it prepares to bring the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process – which explores the Church’s approach to identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage – to a conclusion.
The letter, in the form of a statement from the House, speaks about proposed new bodies to be set up once LLF comes to a conclusion; confirms an agreed approach to any further changes and rules out so-called Delegated Episcopal Ministry at this stage.
Following a General Synod vote in February 2023, same-sex couples can now receive public prayers of dedication, thanksgiving and asking for God’s blessing – known as the Prayers of Love and Faith (or PLF) – as part of a regular church service.
At a meeting today, the House confirmed the decision taken at its meeting in October that, based on legal advice, new special or ‘bespoke’ services using Prayers of Love and Faith would need full formal authorisation under canon law.
They also acknowledged that general permission for clergy to be in a same-sex civil marriage would require a formal legislative process and agreed to explore what legislation would be needed.
And they made clear they could not agree to placing some parishes under the care of bishops with “separate and independent jurisdiction” as a result of the Prayers of Love and Faith at this stage.
The bishops’ letter details how a new working group would carry out the theological and legislative preparatory work needed and report back to the new General Synod – which will be elected later this year – with recommendations within the first two years after the election.
The House recognised and regretted the deep hurt, particularly to LGBTQI+ people, caused by the decisions.
It agreed a letter to the Church, bringing LLF and the process initiated by the February 2023 Synod vote to a formal conclusion and setting out steps to be taken next. A vote of bishops to issue the letter achieved overwhelming consensus across traditions and the range of theological views on questions of sexuality and marriage.
Those steps include establishing a Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group to support the House of Bishops and enable it to:
Engage in preparatory work and explore the approval process under Canon B2 that would be necessary for bespoke services of Prayers of Love and Faith;
Explore what legislative changes would be required to enable clergy to enter same-sex marriage;
Continue to explore what pastoral episcopal provision and reassurance would be required, proportionate to any further proposed changes;
Report back to General Synod with recommendations within the first two years following the upcoming elections.
A new Pastoral Consultative Group will also be set up to advise bishops and archdeacons on specific cases in the interim and facilitate consistent practice across the Church.
“We dare to hope that the LLF process will leave a legacy of greater inclusion of LGBTQI+ people in the life of the Church of England, together with deeper understanding of the theological issues and greater honesty about, and tolerance of, individual differences,” the letter explains.
Speaking of the need for careful consideration of next steps, it adds: “Lessons need to be learned from the process of the last three years.
“It is important to avoid a further cycle of hopes or anxieties being raised only to be disappointed.”
Detailing the process the Church has undergone since the 2023 Synod motion, including the introduction of Prayers of Love and faith, the bishops write: “We believe we have fulfilled, albeit imperfectly, the February 2023 General Synod motion as best we can given the range of views across the Church of England, including replacing Issues in Human Sexuality after the July 2025 Synod motion, without departing from or indicating any departure from the Church’s doctrine of marriage.
“We believe, as a House, that the time has now come formally to conclude this Synodical process in February 2026 and to identify the next stages of work which will need to be considered by the House of Bishops and the General Synod in the coming years, including the ongoing structures for development, dialogue and discernment.”
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said: “Living in Love and Faith was never meant to be a contest with winners and losers yet, because it touches upon such profound theological convictions and personal lived experience, many have felt it to be this way and many have been hurt and confused.
“As we take stock of where we have got to so far and all the things that still need to be explored in the future, my prayer is that we can come together as those whose profound disagreement on some things is outweighed by our profound love for God and for each other on so many things.
“As this stage of the journey comes to an end, we look forward, honouring one another’s integrity, and seeking Christ’s wisdom with patience and humility.”
The Bishop of Winchester, Philip Mounstephen, said: “I’m aware that the process of LLF has been very fraught and I’m sorry that it has caused both pain and some anger amongst many.
“I know too that we are not now where many would want us to be – but I think the place we’re in now is a place of commitment to due and proper process: and that really matters.
“We are – and we need to be – a properly ordered Church.”
The Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Pete Wilcox, said: “I know that many, including in my own Diocese, were deeply distressed by the decisions indicated by the House of Bishops in October last year, and confirmed today.
“But after two years in which, as our statement says, on the one hand ‘hopes have repeatedly been raised and dashed’, and on the other ‘anger has mounted at the perceived disregard for due process’, I am certain that it is right to pause, to take stock and to ensure any future movement in relation to these contested steps follows robust good process and is accompanied by proportionate pastoral provision.”
The Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, said: “I profoundly regret where we have ended up and know that these decisions will be very painful for many, especially LGBTQI+ people and all those who hoped for greater progress – indeed I am one of them.
“I know it will feel to some that the Church has gone backwards in recent years, not forward. At the same time, I want to recognise that some progress has been made in that prayers of blessing for same-sex couples in committed relationships have been commended for use in public worship for the first time.
“Whilst I believe there is no theological distinction between prayers of blessing being offered in scheduled services or bespoke services, further progress at this stage would have meant agreeing to special arrangements, including separate episcopal structures, which I could not support. Such changes would result in the fracturing of our common life and the undermining of our Anglican identity.
“I will continue to advocate for more progress, recognising that there are others who will disagree. Meanwhile, I urge us all to be gentle and kind towards one another, refusing to judge each other, uniting in our common purpose to love God and neighbour and sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in word and action.”
The Bishop of Blackburn, Philip North, said: “The LLF process has caused immense pain on all sides because the matters it concerns carry us to the heart of what it means to be human and what it is to be Christian.
“After a great deal of praying and reflecting together, the House of Bishops has agreed that we want to avoid fragmentation and travel together as one Body for the sake of our mission to the nation.
“This means that when we are making big decisions about what we believe, we need to use General Synod’s established processes to discern God’s will.
“For some we have not gone far enough, for others we have already gone too far. My prayer is that we can stay together for the sake of the people we are called to serve.”
The Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, said: “I am very grateful to all those who have engaged with the LLF process over many years and at considerable personal cost.
“I am thankful that some progress has been made towards greater understanding and inclusion of LGBTQI+ sisters and brothers through Prayers of Love and Faith.
“In my own view the Church of England still has some distance to travel on this journey in the coming years.
“The House of Bishops statement published today is honest about the different views held across the Church in good conscience and expresses a commitment and an appeal to all to continue to walk and work together for deeper understanding.
“The statement also outlines the next stages in dialogue and a clear process for making decisions into the future.”
Notes to Editors
The House of Bishops voted to issue the statement as follows:
For: 35 Against: 1 Abstentions: 4
The Church of England is in a complete pickle entirely of its own making.
One has to admire the Church of England’s ability to find new cans, new roads, and new ways to kick. Or, perhaps, new balls, new long grass, and new ways to throw.
One has to ask: if the proposal is to set up bodies to do “preparatory work” in 2026, what on earth was the point of LLF in the first place? Was it not preparatory?
The bishops are quite unabashed in their entirely predictable delaying tactics. They say they’re sorry for being so mean to queer people but by their fruits we know that not to be the case. I saw LLF for what it was at the outset and declined to invest any emotional energy into such a waste of time and money. I encounter the Body of Christ in the benefice I attend and help out in and manage to more or less sit lightly to the rest of the institution. I really can’t see young lgbtqi people being attracted to ministry in… Read more »
Neither can I but many of us don’t want young queer people to be leaders. LGBT young people are very welcome in the church and should not be treated differently to anyone else. You’re overlooking “exemplary living” as a requirement of an ordained minister. This is what caused all the problems in the first place.
Exemplary living – a great many clergy, including some bishops are divorced and remarried, despite Our Lord’s unambiguous teaching on the matter. I think you need to be consistent in your sexual morality Geoff. Are you familiar with Matthew 7. 3-5?
I think you are a little confused with the concept of sin. We all make wrong choices, we all sin ( through acts of omission, wrong choices and deliberate disobedience). People who divorce and remarry ( in a Christian context) acknowledge their mistakes and contributions to the breakdown. God is gracious and forgives us and gives us another chance. It’s called “grace”. If we continually and persistently sin and even ignore completely Gods intentions for our bodies and actions, we grieve The Holy Spirit. Why do you believe that theologians and great Christian leaders have for two thousand years upheld… Read more »
But Geoff, we queer people have always been in the church, often living exemplary lives. One could think of the many young homosexual priests who flocked to the new Anglo-Catholic movement in Victorian England, and who served willingly in many inner city slum parishes. Or there is their leading light John Henry Newman, who lived with the love of his life Fr. Ambrose st John for two decades, who compared his love for st John to that of a man for his wife, and who demanded to be buried in the same grave as his beloved. Looking back it is… Read more »
I think the evidence that Newman was homosexual is very shaky, from my little reading.
That’s true. Or if he was, he was celebate.
If John Henry Newman was not “gay,” to use the word current today, you most certainly owe him an apology. It is sad when deeply committed friendships must now be swept up into our present age’s categories. Just bad historical evaluation, minimally, that insists every age is just like our own.
And the idea that St Francis was gay, “queer people,” is astonishingly out of touch with the 13th century life of this beggar preacher, 5th crusade participant, etc.
Spot on! Brill comment.
It will be interesting to see if this document pleases anyone. Transparency and trust question: those of us interested in what happens behind the closed doors of the House of Bishops continue to wait for the minutes from October, as well as for December. I welcomed the commitment to publish full (ish) minutes rather than those bland paragraphs summarising meetings, but the sequence starting in December 2023 seems to have ground to a halt. I realise that we can’t see them before they are formally approved, but October minutes were on the agenda for December so why are they still… Read more »
Funny that. The Minutes for the October HoB have just been posted, https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/hb25m5-6-8-october.pdf
Added to TA as a separate article.
The lack of due process has been shocking Stephen Cottrell. The lack of accountability more so. Devastating. No other words.
Memo from ABY to Members of Council- Urgent and Confidential
Will whichever one of you promised me you have this nifty little gadget for stuffing genies back into bottles stop messing around and give it to me NOW. I mean it.
LOL!
Please. Don’t pretend this was about process. This was about grabbing any leverage you could to ensure your view of human sexuality is enforced.
And you don’t want process? We are talking about the church here not the secular government. There are good reasons for holding to what has been given to us over the many centuries. To try and railroad the LLF process through the church without due process has shown the bishops negligence in this matter.
Hardly railroading given the years this farcical process has gone on and the number of votes there have been.
So the House of Bishops have decided to pay attention to power and concluded that power outweighs love. They have paid attention to the threats from the powerful and wealthy Alliance and crumpled under the threats for parallel provinces, diversion of common fund, separate training and ordination pathways. It’s tragic and deeply depressing. Who will stand up and expose this power play for exactly what it is – mean, nasty, divisive and frankly homophobic.
‘Power outweighs love’? Due process is a protection *against* the misuse of power, which is what we have had up till now.
Although i disagree with conservatives on the issue, i agree with them on the process. Trying to bring in this (necessary and overdue) change by the back door, pretending that it’s not a change to the church’s teaching, seems dishonest to me. The HoB’s recent decision to accept this seems a return to a more ethical approach. That’s not to detract from the deeper evil which is when conservatives act as if they alone have the truth about the issue itself and more generally on what Christianity is. Simply admitting a degree of uncertainty would permit PLF to go through,… Read more »
‘To claim total certainty is immature and dishonest and not how people in positions of spiritual leadership should behave.’
Are you totally certain about that, or may one legitimately dissent?
“Are you totally certain about that, or may one legitimately dissent?” Yes, I am certain that anyone who claims “total certainty” about the sinfulness (or otherwise) of same sex relationships is being immature and dishonest (with themselves), and displays an arrogance and lack of respect for those who hold a different belief. LLF was supposed to encourage us to listen respectfully to the opinions of others. Some people were not prepared to do even that. I have evangelical friends who continue to believe that same sex relationships are wrong but they know that they cannot be certain, just like I… Read more »
‘If you think of modern science, being certain that one should hold all one’s theories (beliefs) with a degree of provisionality is not contradictory.’
Making provisional therefore the very belief that ‘one should hold all one’s theories (beliefs) with a degree of provisionality.’
So this is not certain any more?
It has always seemed to me that ‘Liberals’ declare for themselves (self-inconsistent) certainty about their commitment to provisionality, while protesting at claims to certainty made by ‘conservatives.
In my professional life, I often encourage others to ’embrace uncertainty’!
Voltaire – Uncertainty may be an uncomfortable position, but certainty is an absurd one.
Maybe Voltaire was being extreme, so let us set out what we can believe with certainty.
If I assert with great confidence that I may be wrong on some issue, does that make me inconsistent?
If someone says to you, “I know I may be wrong”, presumably you reply: “Well, that’s inconsistent! If you may be wrong then you must also be uncertain about whether you may be wrong! Do what I do: I’m entirely certain about everything!”
We need to distinguish between our beliefs/theories and our epistemology.
I agree with you that the way in which the Bishops tried to handle this was dishonest. It has been costly in terms of the level of trust that anyone has in them, and I wonder what the long term consequences of that will be.
Thank you Nigel. I share your analysis exactly. Although they did the same thing successively with women priests, and divorce, and sex before marriage, so they may have been taken by surprise when it did not work this time. I would add one more thing. I think the bishop’s decision about five years ago to stay silent and not join in the national conversation about LLF was a catastrophic mistake. We now have a cohort of bishops who are not up to speed with the range of views about LGBT+ issues within their dioceses, and who are out of practise… Read more »
Very well put Mr Paul. Thank goodness for some sanity. Although by appointing the two committees, spending two years , appears to have been set the same objective, which is to introduce a doctrine that will inevitably split the church.
Not sure whether this statement is a masterclass in how to spend a long time saying nothing, or a parody. Either way, reading it was a complete waste of my time.
Quite. I gave up after the second paragraph.
“We apologise to all who have been harmed…” – but we will keep harming you. You will continue to be harmed, by us. “We bitterly regret the pain our decisions have caused…” – and we will do nothing to mend this. “We reaffirm the treasured place that LGBTQI+ people…have in the CofE” – but not enough to treat you like human beings. “We want to apologise for the ways in which the Church of England has treated LGBTQI+ people…” – and you can be damn sure we will keep treating you in the same way. Para 25 – we don’t… Read more »
For those of us who never got involved in this process because of a belief it would end with little, if any real change, here we are. I am sad for those who did engage with this and believed they could make a difference and a envisioned a change of attitude, respect and better pastoral care for LGBT people. This has been a hurtful, divisive and expensive waste of time and money. Never mind – we have the usual we are sorry and how sad comments and we allegedly have a ‘properly ordered church’ which is a major priority, whatever… Read more »
Observant thinking anglicans will recall that there were a good number of LGBT+ voices raised at the start of the whole LLF process all those years ago, who said that the process was created to move the church nowhere, that it was a recipe for prevarication and fudge, and that it would succeed in doing what it was designed to do, which was nothing of any substance. I expressed this view personally to the Enabling Officer for LLF, Dr Eeva John. Those of us who took that view and said so were urged by others, including many allies, not to… Read more »
I think you are right Jeremy. So why, then, have the liberals amongst the bishops pushed for *another* follow on process which will offend those who want to uphold the current doctrine of marriage, string you along, and continue this ridiculous conflict?
It is not a ridiculous conflict, Ian. It is people’s lives.
Yes it is people’s lives. To read the Archbishop of York, continually stating “ sorry for the pain and hurt “ to the LGBT community makes me very angry. It’s about my life as well and there are two sides that have experienced hurt in this matter. I never hear ABY saying how sorry he is for my hurt as a faithful follower of Jesus that upholds our inherited doctrine of Christian marriage. Does he really believe there are not thousands of us experiencing pain and turmoil and contemplating leaving the church.
Erm, gay people getting married hurts nobody at all. Just get over it, please. A group of small-minded and unAnglican Puritans should never have been encouraged to think that they are entitled to have a veto over other people’s life choices. Where it has led is merely to prolonged power abuse, judgmentalism, coercion, maintenance of stigma, dishonesty and sexual hypocrisy, none of which are Christian virtues in my view. Over the 30 years or so that this topic has been fought over, and dealt with in the most unpastoral way, more and more of us have come to the conclusion… Read more »
You would say that but I have to disagree. Hurling more abuse at those who disagree with you. You are correct in saying secular marriage hurts no one. You are not correct in stating ( were it permissible in the C of E) “it does not hurt those in the church who uphold biblical teaching on human relationships”. The bishops seem to want to keep the performance rolling for a further two years so “get over it”. I shall refrain from responding to your unkind insults but suffice to say, I don’t believe those that wish to distort biblical teaching… Read more »
I think perhaps you don’t understand the huge psychological damage done to gay people who grow up in Conservative Evangelical households – because they are just as likely to have gay children as anyone else is – by this awful culture of stigmatisation, treating people as if there is something intrinsic they are born with that they are supposed to be ashamed of, that makes them more prone to being evil than those others who can congratulate themselves smugly on being born heterosexual. It isn’t just about same sex marriage. In my lifetime, Conservative Evangelicals have opposed: lowering the age… Read more »
And, by the way, the Church of England has long been a “revisionist organisation.” That is what happened at the Reformation. It is the C of E’s charism: we were founded to allow a king to divorce and remarry, and it ill behoves us, of all the Christian denominations, to be prissy, rather than pragmatic and pastoral, about such topics. If you don’t hold with revision of ecclesiastical doctrine and practice, then your logic would drive you into the RC Church. And does anyone think they have handled issues of gender and sexuality at all well in recent decades?
This is not meant to be a snide comment – these are genuine questions: (1) What hurt, pain, and turmoil have you personally experienced in connection with this issue? and (2) do you feel there is an equivalence between your pain etc. with that of LGBT+ people in the Church of England? Thank you.
I accept that you ask a genuine question. Firstly I do believe that the overuse of the word “hurt” unnecessary. I have both close family and friend that are homosexual. I love and accept my family and friends regardless of their sexual preferences. People who are in same sex relationships should be, and hopefully are welcome, in the church. You may be surprised however that not all same sex attracted people are as radical as the current “anger driven “ lobby that seeks to overturn our historic doctrine on Christian marriage. Society permits same sex marriage. Why, after around two… Read more »
Geoff, you wrote above that this is about “those that wish to distort biblical teaching to suit their own lifestyle choices”. This is a common accusation, but it’s wrong. (It’s also offensive but never mind about that.) There are lots of Christians who believe that historically the church has been wrong to condemn homosexuality and it’s not because they are gay but because they take seriously the command of Jesus to love our neighbour. There’s no need to demonise the motivation of those with whom you disagree. In fact it reveals that you are not respecting or listening to others,… Read more »
Since you think “…and I don’t believe LLF will prove to have been anything other than a colossal, expensive, and ultimately destructive waste of time. All it has done is weaponise division, make General Synod even more divided, and in all likelihood set up the elections for the next Synod to be more bitter than they have ever been.” Are you going to apologise for doing this: “I did rather get the sense in this part of the Church of England, that had it not been for some of us raising our voices and asking insistently when was something going… Read more »
I don’t really understand what you are saying. I don’t have a ‘wishlist’ and I am not an ‘activist’, just a regular and committed worshipper at my parish church. The devisers of LLF naively thought that a process of encounter and listening across divides would produce a change in the church to allow us to live better with difference. As your comment illustrates, this has not happened; if anything, attitudes have hardened.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but I understand that your diocese would have mostly avoided the pain and wasted resources save that “some of us” pushed it onto them.
I understood you to be part of that group of activists that you called “some of us” – and certainly if that group doesn’t have a wish list of what they actually practically want then they’re simply a bunch of loud noises – and so I was wondering if you were going to apologise.
Yep, a bit like that report on how we should change Safeguarding.
This is disgusting. To have the gall to apologise to LGBTQI+ people for the way the Church has treated them, and then to keep right on doing it.
Not sure you are supposed to put the “T” in there nowadays Tim; at least in the UK.
I don’t live in the UK, and I’m following the format given to us by our Diocese of Edmonton ‘Queerly Beloved’ working group. Except that I’ve left out ‘2S’ which I suspect is even more meaningless to you UK folk.
I know you’re not in the UK. Just pointing out that these vociferous minorities have a big tendency to schism. 🙂
And yet, on our diocesan ‘Queerly Beloved’ working group, they seem to speak with one voice…
P.S. Minorities often have no choice to be vociferous; the dominant culture is set up to exclude them.
So they’ve dodged the demand by the Antis for their own Province. Why not turn that round and give inclusive parishes our own Province with our own Bishops etc so we can get on with putting the Gospel into action and speak the truth of God’s love to a nation that has all but given up on its established Church. Then we can grow and flourish while they dwindle into the holier than thou remnant they so desire to be. There will be no “reconversion” of the nation until we are seen to be relevant, inclusive, and loving. Sadly I… Read more »
I think this has already been proposed by the Alliance as a way forward and has been rejected by the bishops as they wish to preserve the unity of the Church of England. Perhaps if there was more support for this way forward from all of those involved in the LLF process then it might gain some traction as a way forward.
Perhaps a note of positivity! The Bishops probably have come up with a statement drawing the highest degree of consensus in the House of Bishops than at any stage in the LLF process. Yes the Alliance will be unhappy that PLF still proceeds without alternative episcopal over sight and Inclusive Church will cry foul because the pathway to stand alone services and marriage for same sex couples is blocked. But the Bishops have rightly asked for external input from FAOC in the midst of an impasse and are accepting their guidance. My main concern is the even more polarising effect… Read more »
Voting only for candidates who meet a basic minimum standard of human decency is not “party politics”.
Sometimes one party stands for human decency, another does not, resulting in ‘polarisation’
Gay folk don’t exist in a vacume. They have family and friends. And they’re watching with bemused incredulity as Lambeth fiddles and burns. So much for evangelism! Forget the touché canon fire. Get broadside with the grappling irons. The queer bashing has to stop. The pharisees need defenestrating. What would Jesus do?
I don’t remember him defenestrating anyone!
Unfortunately, the first rule of politics is to learn how to count. And the first rule of Synod is that it’s an attempt to divine the intentions of God through a political process.
Being properly inclusive seems to have the support of more than half, but less than two-thirds, of Synod. As long as that continues, so does the stasis, however horrible that is.
Perhaps David’s suggestion above might be the way forward.
Together for the Church of England have published an Open Letter to the House of Bishops which can be read here.
I could not disagree more with this letter. It just indicates the, probably irreversible, direction certain interest groups have taken since the church hierarchy decided to move away from sound doctrine many years ago. There really is little point in arguing or debating this emerging disaster. The “inclusive church brigade “ will never win my buy in and, I guess, those who applaud this statement will never join me in the Alliance or New Wine. As we individually chart our own course it cannot be overlooked that our helpless ( so may say hopeless) bishops have started a process that… Read more »
“Sound doctrine” sounds like an undue reliance on the Old Testament to me. Shall we go back to stoning people for adultery? I suspect we’d run out of stones. What about that unique episode where God appears to want a human sacrifice in the OT? We are in danger of fossilization if we cannot look at ourselves in the time in which we live. To me, it’s one of the best bits of Christianity, or more accurately, the Protestant part of it, that we are able to continuously re-examine our faith, and, sometimes, to modify it.
The only possible response now is for General Synod to respond to this paper as they did to the Bishops paper in February 2017, and refuse to take note of it. It would also be helpful for General Synod to pass a vote of no confidence in the House of Bishops. This is an outrageous piece of work.
I could not agree more Andrew but I think we are whistling in the wind….we can but hope that General Synod will flex its muscles and refuse to take note. I wonder how many retired bishops will distance themselves from it…I see that Paul Bayes ex Liverpool has come out against it already.
How many decades were consumed in the drawn-out process of permitting women to be ordained priests? Was it seven decades? The resistance was immense.
What lessons and comparisons, I wonder, can be drawn from the last century and applied to the equality of all people, regardless of gender and sexuality in this century?
Lots of lessons Eddie. Not enough to stop the one sided slant that this debate only “hurts” one group in the church. For all those like me, who uphold our historic doctrine on Christian marriage, there is also much hurt and anguish.
I fully accept and agree with women’s ordination.
I have never accepted the woman’s ordination question to be on anything like an equal footing with the LLF process. In my view they have nothing in common.
I very much hope we continue to uphold sound biblical doctrine.
It’s not the same. Again, in the present controversy many on both sides are horrified by the opinions of the other. That is an unpleasantness to be borne whatever your view. But only those who have to be told that their sexuality is inferior, unnatural or socially damaging have that intimate disparagement to bear. So there’s one strike for both sides, two strikes for one side only. Which doesn’t prove that homosexuality is in truth of equal value to its hetero counterpart, since the hurt caused by being told disparaging things about one’s most intimate self, something not capable of… Read more »
Geoff, if you believe in “sound biblical doctrine,” in the sense of maintaining traditional teaching, then you cannot be in favour of women’s ordination. The same Paul often quoted as the reason for being against acceptance of gay people is the one who said that women must keep silent in the churches, and that the man is the head of the woman. To be in favour of updating the traditional teaching of 2000 years in that area yet not in this is not logical. We are dealing with prejudice here, the fragile and fearful masculinity of some deeply-challenged heterosexual men… Read more »
“the fragile and fearful masculinity of some deeply-challenged heterosexual men”
Yes or, even more likely, of repressed homosexual men- who have a lot invested in not admitting they’ve unnecessarily and tragically excluded themselves from sexual or relational fulfilment in their lives- which would also explain Pilivachi, Smyth, Ball, etc. (Perhaps “tragic” is an exaggeration. We all have crosses to bear and Christians should think of others. Tragic is watching your child being killed in Gaza.)
Spot on as well. Especially your last sentence.
Spot on
Is this whole bad tempered, irresolvable, circular, damaging, argument not an illustration of the folly of allowing religious organisations to ignore the law of the land?
I think Gods laws take precedence. Hence the Church of England having a “get out of jail” card to maintain the right to religious belief over spirit of the age secularism.
The Church only has that card because the state allows it to. The state could take it away. The problem is to what extent one can legislate about people’s legitimate conscientously held position, and when does a conscientiously-held position become illegitimate. We have learnt that religious tolerance is by and large a good thing, but it does have limits.
But this isn’t about “God’s law”, is it? It’s about a whole disparate set of often conflicting human guesses – even within one small branch of one faith – as to what God’s laws are. Other people’s beliefs about what God wants lead them to circumcise babies or kill animals without stunning them, to drive Palestinians from their ancestral lands or (as was in the news last week) preach that God permits – nay, expects – men to chastise their wives physically for disobedience. The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa believed that God ordained apartheid. “God’s law” still permits… Read more »
Society has institutions that holds its prophetic powers, its conservatism, its resistance and its madness. In the 1980’s the Church of England held the prophetic powers of our country through its ‘Faith in the city’ and its contribution to the regeneration of neglected communities. Tragically the Church of England now holds the bigotry of conservative resistance and marginalisation of others. Is there any connection with our country’s transition from handling much of our mental health care in lunatic asylums to care in and with the community? To what extent have we, as an Institution, mirrored this transition and have now… Read more »
You put forward some concise points Pam and it highlights the sacred/secular divisions in both faith communities and society as a whole. By all means, to grant satisfaction to the masses outside of our faith and revisionists within the church, remove the religious privilege held by the C of E and legislate that any religious organisation that doesn’t accept gay marriage will be punished. A large segment of believers would then choose to remove themselves from formal organisations and meet privately ( similar to Chinese Christian’s). It seems therefore that in order to “win” the argument each group needs to… Read more »
And punish Orthodox Jews and Muslims? I think not!
The Christian community with whom I currently worship is Mennonite. Their shared history includes many, many stories of state persecution because of their commitment to Christian pacifism and nonviolence. Some modern states allow conscientious objection, but many do not. Mennonites have been jailed, sent to concentration camps, subjected to forced labour, forced to serve in the military anyway, and sometimes executed.
Be careful about wanting the state to force people to compromise their conscience. I understand that it’s not a simple issue, but I also know that it might be your conscience they come for next.
This is heart breaking stuff but not wholly surprising. I do not want to rehearse familiar arguments. But I do want to say a big thank you to those who led the long LLF process. I was involved in different stages of it and it was clear every time I was in the room how hard people were working for the cause of inclusion – including many bishops. And how hard to find any way forward when a formidably well funded and resourced conservative opposition (itself unrepresentative of the broader Evangelical Anglicans) is simply unwilling to respect any viewpoint than… Read more »
I wonder what the way forward might be, David. And while thanks are being expressed, I would like to thank *you* for the hard work you have been doing on behalf of Inclusive Evangelicals. I wonder how many in the Evangelical movement are aware that is possible with integrity to be both inclusive towards LGBT+ people and Evangelical. I have no doubt that among the faithful sitting in HTB churches on an average Sunday there will be a great many silently wishing their leaders would be more gracious towards their LGBT+ family members, friends and colleagues, whilst not daring to… Read more »
I think you are very mistaken brother. Why you see fit to attack HTB when their are so many congregations you could criticise speaks volumes about the “lost cause” of LLF and its ( so far) failed attempt to completely discredit anything good in the C of E. You use terms like “opposition” which just about sums up your worldly take and abandonment of sound Christian principles on this subject.
Thank you for your comments. In our Inclusive Evangelical networks we regularly hear frustration and pain from those in churches where the leadership is imposing a conservative position on the prayers in a non-consultative way and where discussion is not encouraged or allowed. Not all, but too many. Evangelical churches do not hold ‘one view’ – they never have. I do not believe that the present leadership of the historic evangelical networks like CEEC or (the more recent) Alliance are representative of the wider Evangleican Anglican world right now. But their hands are on the controls and budgets. The Evangelical… Read more »
Any attempt to police or discipline those who do so would result in a very public missional and reputational disaster. No one in their right mind would risk it. Thanks again.
This. Carpe diem.
Moreover, I would be amazed if it was not already happening, or has been happening for decades.
Gay blessings are overtly happening in Guildford. I thought everyone knew. Clearly not.
I think you have it the wrong way round. There are a large number of us considering walking away from our parish church due to the liberal pro LLF stance of the vicar and two curates. We are the largest church in the benifice ( of 4 churches). The smaller churches are not sustainable and if the Alliance members leave all of the churches will not be sustainable. You can have your liberal “inclusive “ churches but you will certainly see the denomination fade into an ever shrinking irrelevance. It’s not about levers it’s about genuine orthodoxy, pretending to be… Read more »
The issue of whether to stay or leave our church community is a very painful one. In Geoff’s context, what we know of it, he will have those in his community who can empathise very well with his dilemma. They are worshipping with him every Sunday. They are feeling the same and probably have been for much longer. They are LGBT, or have a child who is, a close friend, or their allies. They find themselves in a church that continues to publicly discuss their faith, personal integrity, bible knowledge, most intimate relationships, and their very humanity. That is something… Read more »
Thanks for the commentary and character analysis David. I am sure you mean well but your judgmental and, I may say, pious, liberal monologue just about sums up why the C of E is in such a perilous state. You constantly justify calling faithful Christian’s “the opposition “. Your words reveal your true intentions. The fruit of your actions is the result of decades of weak leadership by those who were appointed to be shepherds . You are therefore not entirely to blame for being where you find yourself but I guess you will never fully understand why “the opposition… Read more »
I’d like to know whether there is indeed a “silent majority”. I’d love to see our first ever Referendum!
Do something radical: leave it to individual PCCs and have no “official” position on the question. Keeps the Conservatives and Africans reasonably happy. If I were against but my PCC were in favour, and I felt strongly, I could go to another local church where I felt comfortable, surely? Problem is, I suppose, that we are an Episcopal church? We still have some congregations that don’t accept the ministry of women, and we somehow cope.
Not a great idea as the church needs to divide on this and certainly not travel well together and dilute the orthodoxy. Damage has been well and truly done by the HOB on this.
Why does it “need to divide”?
There is a diversity amongst ‘Africans’. there is a diversity amongst ‘conservatives’. No little boxes.
Not much diversity in Africa when it comes to Homosexuality!
Interesting that people on TA can be liberal in all things theological but reveal racist traits when looking at orthodox Christians from overseas.
I presume that is aimed at me: in what way is it “racist”? In Uganda there is the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”.
Africa is a very big place.
There is actually, as Nigel Goodwin says. We need to beware of generalising. A forthcoming book by an African church expert, Phil Groves, has a chapter on this that begins …. ‘It is generally believed that Christianity in the Global South is theologically and morally ‘conservative’. People believe that there is a unified conservative ‘Global South’ working with evangelicals in the North to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage against a creeping liberalism that is giving in to contemporary Western culture. The truth is far more complex.’
Of course it’s more complex but you can’t get away from the generality.
It needs a few brave clergy (probably those with alternative incomes) to just go ahead, as I believe is happening in Guildford somewhere.