The Church of England issued the press release below this afternoon.
Update on Living in Love and Faith, October 2025
15/10/2025
The House of Bishops has made a series of key decisions on the future direction of the Church of England’s Living in Love and Faith process, which explores questions of relationships, sexuality and marriage.
At its residential meeting last week, the House reviewed detailed theological and legal advice on outstanding questions following the landmark 2023 Synod vote which led to the introduction of the Prayers of Love and Faith (or PLF).
The PLF are a set of prayers, readings and liturgical material which, for the first time, enable same-sex couples to come to church for public prayers of dedication, thanksgiving and asking for God’s blessing as part of a regular church service.
Since then, the Church has been exploring whether special ‘bespoke’ services using the PLF could be introduced and whether clergy could legally enter into same-sex marriages.
There has also been extensive consideration of possible new arrangements for how the Church is organised including so-called ‘Delegated Episcopal Ministry’.
The bishops reviewed advice both from the Church of England’s Legal Office and the Faith and Order Commission (all of which will be published in due course).
While final decisions will be made by the House in December, the bishops agreed in principle that both bespoke service and clergy same-sex marriage would need formal synodical and legislative processes to be completed before they could be permitted.
As a result, they also concluded there is currently no need for a new code of practice setting out special arrangements such as Delegated Episcopal Ministry.
Although there remains a wide range of views within the House on questions of sexuality and relationships, there was strong consensus on the need for unity, transparency and proper process alongside pastoral care. Despite personal convictions across traditions, the House of Bishops recognised these were the procedural realities to effect any future change.
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, chair of the LLF Programme Board, commented: “As we continue prayerfully to navigate this important work on behalf of the Church, we believe these are the right decisions following further legal and theological advice.
“However, we recognise that for some, they will be difficult and disappointing.
“I continue to pray for God’s grace and gentleness for all as we continue to discern a way through these questions.”
Key decisions:
The Bishops took part in a series of votes on elements of a statement from the House which would summarise the LLF process and outcomes. They indicated, on the basis of the advice received, that in December they will:
They also agreed they would provide pastoral reassurance through:
Given the decisions indicated above, the Bishops concluded that there was sufficient pastoral reassurance in the elements listed and did not propose to bring forward a code of practice at this time.
While there was a range of views expressed on questions of sexuality and marriage the decisions on most points were reached with near unanimity – spanning the breadth of theological tradition.
Notes to Editors
‘Today’s surprising decisions from the House of Bishops on LLF underline how very, very poor this process has been for several years. The legal advice, concerning both ‘bespoke services’ and clergy in same-sex marriages, could and should have been articulated clearly years ago.
Much pastoral and missional damage within the CofE and beyond could have been avoided – instead we seem to have enshrined uncertainty and disunity. And meanwhile LGBT Christians will rightly ask what happened to the ‘radical new Christian inclusion’ that was once promised.’ Christopher Landau
Homophobia and prejudice as the CofE goes backwards (again) and treats LGBT+ clergy in same-sex partnerships despicably. No reason for any LGBT+ people to stay let alone join this toxic organisation.
Such people are very welcome to leave
‘Such people’? Interesting use of language. It makes Fr Mike’s point for him if the such people referred to are the LGBT+ ones.
Apologies, I should have been more clear in my use of language: LGBT+ people are very welcome to leave
Do you mean LGBT+ people or LGBT+ clergy? If the former, I think you have some reflection/prayer time in your in-tray. if the latter – I still find your comment strange. Leave what?
You don’t want the Body of Christ to lose any member surely?
Try not to make your comment worse!
I wonder why droves of intelligent under 50s see the Church as toxic judgemental and bigoted.
I am sure the university Christian Union members may think differently but they are a bit ‘special’.
Poor Sarah has to find a good defibrillator for a church in heart failure.
‘Such people are very welcome to leave’, comes across as utterly vile.
Quite. I responded before I saw your comment.
Whilst I am not a medic I think I’m right in saying there is no cure for heart failure. The heart has become flabby and weak. So a defibrillator would be of little use to Dame Sarah. Perhaps if we are to continue with the medical analogy a transplant is the only hope?
Very good!!….and indeed a defibrillator is for restarting the heart….and we are not at that point yet….but keep on taking the Isosorbide mononitrate and GTN…..and hope se don’t get to total failure.
I would understand if they did – but why should they be ones to leave?
Because they want the change. If I joined a tennis club, but would rather play badminton, I don’t insist that the club changes and call them unkind badmintonphobes when they refuse.
So by that logic, rather than imposing what was largely top down change on the 16th C Church in England, Cranmer and Latimer and the rest should just have left it and started a new body (like the Anabaptists did)?
Homophobia is a ridiculous overused word. Just because some Christian’s want to hold to historic biblical church doctrine is doesn’t mean they hate those who choose to act differently. I do find the “Homophobia” accusations ,that frequently ring out, just because people cannot have what they want ( demand) unnecessary and divisive. The comment about homophobia is constantly overplayed and so predictable given the weak Bishops finally realising that their revisionist theology dash was poorly thought out and clumsily implemented. I shall choose to stick around a little longer because of today’s press release but I will not hate those… Read more »
Interesting that you object to a pejorative use of ‘homophobia’ and then resort to a pejorative use of ‘revisionist’.
When I was a conservative I also claimed not to be homophobic. But at the same time, deep down inside, one of the things I was most nervous about was the possibility of an openly gay couple joining our church. I had no idea how I would/should respond pastorally to such a couple. So yes, even though I would have denied it, I was homophobic.
Tim, I am not a conservative. My wife is a retired minister. I am however orthodox evangelical. When we had both men and woman same sex couples in the churches she led they were neither judged or condemned. They were accepted as part of our church family. Their “sin” and need of repentance was no different in weightiness to others sins ( like deliberately not being honest with their tax return). We didn’t banish anyone because of sin in their life otherwise the church would have been empty ( including my wife and I). We love and accept one another… Read more »
I have not been converted to non-orthodox theology.
Nobody can say of themselves with confidence “I am not homophobic/racist/chauvinist”. The most we can be sure of in ourselves is “I try not to be…” If we deny the possibility that something in ourselves may need changing, we make it harder for God to work that change.
Lots needs changing in me mate. I state again I am not homophobic though. It’s a label cheaply flung at people holding an alternative view and it’s a term not befitting of Christian’s to join the fray.
Your wife *led* a church? How can you possibly be an “orthodox evangelical”? Surely you and she are as much “revisionist” as the people to whom you apply that label?
As far as we can tell, the early church for the first couple of Christian centuries was overwhelmingly pacifist. Then along came the imperial theologians with their revisionist just war theory, and the rest is history.
As far as we can tell, the early, medieval, early modern, enlightenment and pre-1960s churches were overwhelmingly heteronormative. Then along came the culturally accommodated theologians with their queer theory, and the rest is what will be history quite soon.
A correct assumption, in my view. “Spirit of the age” is alive and reigns in the C of E. Nicky Gumbel gives a perfect example of this in his address to 5000 people at The Royal Albert Hall in May this year. It’s well worth a viewing on YouTube.
It is important to be wary of “the spirit of this age”, but also (as C S Lewis rightly noted) “the spirit of the previous age”. Homophobia (and it is homophobia, however you dress it up in theology) has a long cultural history linked to notions of emasculation and patriarchal (particularly Roman) assumptions about active and passive roles in sexual relationships that weigh far more on “traditional” teaching than anyone on the conservative side would like to admit. Like justifications for slavery and racism, homophobic teaching serves a social order that had need of it. We’re less than a century… Read more »
Hi Jo, thanks for posting this. I had wanted to make the same response to Geoff a day ago but was away travelling and so could not. There are two forms of homophobia in the church. “Direct homophobia”, where people act on their own homophobic instincts, is becoming rarer. But there is an “indirect homophobia” where people act on biblical texts (in the English translation) or on traditional teaching, not realising that the translations and the teaching contain a legacy of homophobic scholarship from centuries ago. In David and Jonathan’s poignant final meeting we are told (in the Hebrew text)… Read more »
I think that you’re confusing קָדֵשׁ and קָדַשׁ. This is like accusing somebody of homophobia for not spreading butterflies on their toast.
Hi Kyle. I admit I do not read much Hebrew myself, but I rely on experts.
The kadeshim example was taken from Theodore Jennings, professor of biblical theology at Chicago Theological Seminary. And the David example is from Dairmaid MacCulloch, professor of the history of the church at Oxford university..
Both were commenting separately on the indirect homophobia issue of how historic inaccurate bible translation distorts current discourse
Just to be sure I checked both translation questions with a rabbi who teaches at Sarum college, and I was told that these understandings were correct.
Best wishes.
Kyle, Following on from my last comment, it is often helpful to compare Christian and Jewish responses to the same Hebrew scriptural text. The Christian response is often prim and bowdlerised, whilst the Jewish understanding is more robustly sexual. It has been suggested that this is because Jewish teachings have been developed over the centuries by married men, but Christian teachings by celibates. For example the stereotypical Christian understanding of the curse of Ham is that the fault is due to Ham seeing his father Noah drunk and naked. If, however, you turn to the Jewish Publication Society commentary on… Read more »
Thanks, Simon for your comments to both Jo B and Kyle, which I find helpful. I can’t read Greek or Hebrew, and rely on what gleanings of wisdom I can pick up, either here or other readings I can find. And, being still somewhat literal minded, I tend to take English translations at face value. Seriously, so that’s where the idea about Ham and Noah comes from? I’d have never thought of reading it in that way. I’m having similar problems with Ezekiel at the moment – whereas the NIV plays down the sexual element with Noah, and a few… Read more »
Thanks John.
Just by chance I am on a retreat this weekend with OneBodyOneFaith, the LGBTQ support group, and the theme is the retreat is the Song of Songs. It was led by Karen O’Donnel, who was excellent.
In the conversations it became clear that quite a few of us, like you, have been left by the church with a legacy of difficult issues related to our bodies, our sexuality, or our erotic lives. I am sorry.
Has “Lower than Angels” A history of Sex and Christianity “by the historian Diarmaid McCulloch been published in Canada, Tim. A very interesting academic survey.
Perry, very little is published in Canada, but we can get pretty well everything that’s published in the USA!
Very important when it’s dark for six months of the year.
Um – it’s not.
Cornelius was a soldier. Jesus commended the faith of a centurion. We never read that either man was told to desert. Indeed, Paul described the Christian life with military metaphors. There is nothing intrinsically anti-Christian with serving in the army. The ‘revisionist just war theory’ may be a bit older than you think. (Have a look at Cicero, for example.)
James, I’m familiar with the just war arguments (I used to make them myself). All I’m saying is that the writers from the first couple of Christian centuries almost all interpreted the NT as requiring Christians to be pacifist. This was the standard biblical interpretation in the early years.
And of course I know that the ‘revisionist’ Christian theologians drew on early pagan sources (like Cicero) for their just war theory. I’m not denying that. I’m simply saying that the Christian adoption of it doesn’t happen for a couple of hundred years.
Isn’t the issue of female clergy entirely separate from the issue of sexuality? They are far too often conflated. The conflation is often quite revealing in itself.
Who said I was conflating the issue?
I’m sorry, my reply was not directed at only you, but I often see this (not-so-hidden) between female clergy and sexuality.
It is surely perfectly consistent, as an orthodox evangelical, to agree with female clergy but not agree with same sex marriage. I see the two issues as being on different theological/biblical levels.
I have no idea in what box I reside! But I know I would feel uncomfortable in a church where female leadership was explicitly forbidden.
If you regard the issue of patriarchal domination as the major presenting problem in the church, then gender (i.e.female clergy), homosexuality and transgender issues all overlap and all are all symptoms of the same problem.
I agree there can be underlying issues. Whether or not it is patriarchy is harder to tell. Probably not scientifically verifiable!
It may equally be a doctrinal adherence to certain scriptural verses, and the question of biblical truth as filtered by human thinking and analysis. For the patriarchy question, it can be argued that the historical context drove it. For the marriage question, the biblical authority may dominate..
There are of course female homosexuals amongst the clergy.
Personally, as someone who is semi-detached, I think the underlying priorities and nature of the church and Christianity get a bit lost.
You don’t appear to understand evangelicals very well. Have you met any?
Oh, I think you know the answer to that question, and it’s not the one one that your tone implies. And you haven’t actually read what I wrote.
Ian you don’t seem to understand that not all evangelicals agree with you on this matter. By no means all evangelicals are conservative evangelicals, and I suspect you are in quite a minority amongst evangelicals in the UK.
It seems Geoff has no answer to your question about the authenticity of his claim to orthodoxy! Conservative evangelicals are invariably pick n mix with Scripture.
No Paul. Surely not. Sorry we don’t fit your stereotype on this one mate.
What stereotype? If you think women in church leadership are OK, while considering the current issue unscriptural, then you have chosen to engage in some sorts of revisionism, and ought to admit as much.
The church constantly develops its doctrine. It is a living entity, not a static set of rules. The key question is not ‘Am I a conservative/evo/reactionary or a liberal/revisionist’ but rather ‘Do I want what God wants, and how do I discern what that is from His word, His church and His world?’ Accordingly, it’s quite possible to be orthodox while supporting something the church has only endorsed for the last 30 years; and to be unorthodox by continuing to practice something the church has moved on from, food purity laws being an early example. Orthodoxy boils down to whether… Read more »
Extrapolating from what St Augustine said about science, is men in leadership a core doctrine, or does it seem ridiculous according to modern knowledge and experience, and cause a hindrance to the Gospel?
It’s not even necessarily related to the modern era, though that has put women’s leadership in the church in the spotlight Women are there throughout the gospels and up to Pentecost in Acts. Then they are less visible in the rest of Acts and the letters. Of course the twelve disciples were all men. But Mary, mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha and others were integral to Jesus’ life and ministry. And so you might think that women’s emergence into church leadership is something the Lord has been waiting for – not forgetting that many, many women down… Read more »
“The church constantly develops its doctrine. It is a living entity, not a static set of rules.” I think one of the more interesting — and least commented upon — examples of this is usury. For the vast majority of Christian history, until the Renaissance or so, usury (defined in its original sense of charging ANY interest for the loans of money) was one of the worst of sins. The Third Lateran Council decreed that usurers were barred from both Communion and Christian burial. Dante placed usurers in the seventh (of nine) circle of hell, the same as the sodomites.… Read more »
More likely because borrowing money is a key requirement for economic development, and people in GAFCON countries don’t have the luxury of living with the low rates of economic growth that have now become the norm for the UK.
There was no remonstration with people who were openly dishonest and had no apparent intention of changing?
Homophobia does not mean or even imply hatred of anyone – it means fear of attraction to that which is the same – gender in this context. I’m glad that you don’t hate others, but what do you fear?
I fear the devil, who in recent times has specialised in convincing us that sinful acts are to celebrated as virtuous.
Like killing your fellow Christians who wear the uniform of another country because your government tells you your sisters and brothers in Christ are your enemies, you mean?
Tim: yes, there must have been many Christians, among others, in the Wehrmacht and it was my uncle’s Christian duty to fight them (and die in doing so).
Interesting. Paul got very hot under the collar when Jewish and Gentile Christians refused to share meals with each other in Galatia. To him they were denying the gospel. I think he’d have gone ballistic if someone had suggested it was okay for them to kill one another.
There are so many nice people, whose presence is helpful to those around them, who are homosexual and wish, even wish quite vocally, to be accepted in society and Church. Very hard to think of them as demonic
The Lucius Letters are published on the blog run by Stephen Parsons to keep us up to date with the devil’s activities.
I can agree with that. It sums up the recent path of weak leadership in our churches.
Geoff, the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology defines ‘diabolic’ as that which aims to divide – to render assunder (dia make two + bolus to throw or cast). So I have a question for you and for J. Beeson. If I was your Vicar and living with my same sex partner in the vicarage, would you receive Holy Communion from my hands? A simple yes or no will do.
Andrew, the question would not arise. I would not be led by a vicar who cohabited with a person of the same sex as I would not accept their leadership. On the question of communion, I have not taken communion since 2023 when General Synod took the dreadful decision to bless same sex relationships and my diocesan Bishop and suffragan Bishop voted for this measure so I have notified my PCC that I no longer accept them as spiritual leaders. I remain in the Anglican Church until either those in error leave or the Canons are legally changed and I… Read more »
You describe the blessing of faithful relationships that bring forth in abundance the fruit of the Spirit as “dreadful” and claim vehemently not to be homophobic. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
You have misread my comment. The reference was to “the dreadful decision made by synod” nothing to do with fruit of the spirit or specific people. As Ian Paul has already stated, the decision to proceed, until this week, with LLF has caused upset all around and caused divisions in churches and families. You may be surprised to know that I have friends and family who are in same sex relationships and I love them ( note -I do not hate them). I am sorry if this derails your stereotype of orthodox Christians. The Bishops, who are leaders of the… Read more »
But a decision to commend something which indeed bears good fruit can’t really be dreadful
Cannot commend a sinful act I am afraid. Love the sinner not the sin.
I am an orthodox Christian so I have no stereotypes to derail on that score. LLF didn’t cause division, unrepentant homophobia in deed and word (contrary assertion not withstanding) is the cause.
So it’s fine to have a vicar who stays in the closet & keeps his/her sex life secret, but if they are out in the open about their same sex relationship that is a no no.
To me that attitude just encourages lying, hypocrisy, and the secretive world in which abuse flourishes.
It’s got nothing to do with being secretive. As Christians we walk in the light so, in practice , it would probably not be possible to hide sexual sin from a congregation. Moreover, why has the C of E not upheld discipline in the church over many years? When my wife was ordained she was asked about her relationship with me. If we were not married,but cohabitating, she would not have been able to go forward for ordination. The church had rules on how church leaders should conduct themselves and it was to be to a high moral standard. In… Read more »
I think that you have answered the question of your homophobia quite eloquently. Thank you.
But if one thinks that certain behaviour is destroying or making a mockery of something which is valued, such as the authentically Christian way of life, then maybe it is only fear, not phobia
Andrew, you seem to delight in name calling. You judge, you condemn and use your strap line ( homophobia) as if it places you on some sacred ground . Come the day we shall all be called to account, I know where I would wish to be standing. I wouldn’t be surprised if you join in with the New ABC and her views on pro- choice as well as LFF – as if God didn’t really know what he doing until the enlightenment of the liberal C of E.
Geoff, I’m not calling you names, I am simply describing your openly stated beliefs and attitudes. You are afraid of homosexuality and homosexuals as evidenced by your decision to excommunicate yourself from the Church of England. Of course, you are free to do so, but to then bemoan the lack of communion as caused by another is simply astonishing – and downright rude as well.
You seem to have taken the hook on my deliberately ambiguous comment about sexual sin. I was referring to sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. How on earth does this make me homophobic? The church certainly did not allow men or woman to cohabitate in a rectory and demanded they be married. Your attention was once again focused on your primary obsession -homophobia!
The Church of England allows the remarriage of divorcees yet refuses to affirm those in faithful and committed same sex relationships. Both are difficult to argue from scripture. So where the only difference is the sexuality of the people involved, it’s homophobia. What you call revisionist, others call pastoral accommodation.
Lots of conservative friends claim that they’re not ‘homophobic’ because they have gay ‘friends’. Let’s see if that works… If racism is defined as seeing ‘race as a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race’ (Marrion-Webster) then seeing homosexual attraction as ‘intrinsically disordered’ (CCC 2357) and thus a moral determinant of of human traits and capacities making them less than those who are only attracted only to those of the opposite sex might be defined how? Racism is condemned by non-racists because a) scientifically there’s no evidence for the… Read more »
That was extremely long and not very coherent. I don’t agree. I object to your word “ repugnant”, it’s very emotive and unnecessary. You need to be mindful you are not getting into name calling as it benefits no one.
Regardless of your theory, which is tenuous, the church canons are clear and, hopefully, following last weeks common sense announcement, will continue to allow the church to uphold historical teaching on human relationships while welcoming people of all backgrounds and race.
Accurate descriptions and labels are not “name calling”. That you dance around the labels you apply to people (like implying that anyone who disagrees with you lacks “common sense”) doesn’t make you more polite or reasonable, just more disingenuous.
I suppose being called disingenuous is a fair price to pay for seeing off the attack on the historical teachings of the church and upholding truth. Regardless of the dancing around labels that you obscurely suggest I find the Bishops retreat on LLF a dance that I can be thankful for and I hope the C of E can move on from this unnecessary mess.
Note to Editors: Resignations will follow shortly.
If only !!!
The firm decision away from ‘Delegated Episcopal Ministry’ is significant and very welcome.
Agreed
It is significant, but only welcome to me if it is not inextricably linked to the parallel decision to row back on the LLF proposals, imposing a condition that is likely to mean that they do not get implemented in the foreseeable future.
In Australia we are still struggling with LFF. A divided Church that is slowly sinking towards an inevitable split. Sadly while vital issues with safeguarding and renewal are left stranded on the reef , the leadership is split counting deckchairs while the ship is sinking. Back in the eighties it looked like the Anglican Church in Australia was stuck firmly in a colonial establishment conservative 1950s mind set. It seems the CofE is still stuck in the same era. Here in the antipodes we see the same pale reflection of the CofE. Surely blessing marriages and relationships across all gender… Read more »
So much time and effort wasted and for what? So much pain inflicted and enshrined and for what? So many hollow strap lines adopted and for what? The whole LLF thing has been costly at every level. In fact its been shameful.
Indeed. If I were someone wanting change, I would be deeply angry with those bishops who promised in secret that they could deliver it, when they must have known all along, from the legal and theological advice, that it was never going to be possible.
Did anyone actually believe the bishops intended change? Anyone with eyes to see thought that LLF was yet another kick of the can down the road.
The long grass, it seems, is of infinite reach; the spines of the episcopate undetectable; pastoral reassurance reserved for conservatives; PLF the smallest of crumbs that sticks in the throat.
Politically this is quite an English ( as in COfE) type of coup. Only an ABC designate … so no one to blame gov
Safeguarding has no hope
2 years ago in November 2023 General Synod question number 2 I asked the then Bishop of London (now Archbishop of Canterbury designate) if the Bishops would consider at that stage testing the mind of Synod on the question of the introduction of services for same same sex couples requiring a 2/3 majority. It was met with a monosyllabic answer “No” without any further explanation and some derision from the floor but we now find ourselves 2 years down the line about to embark on a process requiring just such a vote. How much money, time and most of all… Read more »
Today, 16 October, we celebrate (mark/ remember) Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London, and Hugh Latimer, Bishop of Worcester, Reformation Martyrs, 1555.
A futile gesture (beyond the Fringe) or prophetic witness (eg Isaiah?) ?
A lot of gesturing at present re LLF, DEM, Episcopal oversight(s), whitewashed walls, …
All over the first female ABCD? Who’s in the ascendant/who’s in charge? God’s in charge, over all. Time for (more) humility, love of all our neighbours.
I speak as a conservative – though I dislike the label – who is relieved that LLF is effectively over. This is a time to lament the waste of time and money over the last eight years. It is a time to lament the huge damage done to trust in the house of bishops. It is a time to lament the broken promises made to people across the range of positions. I take no pleasure at all in the distress these decisions will cause to people who may choose to call themselves progressives. I deplore the tone of some of… Read more »
I have lost any sense of patience I once had with this debate. I am currently licensed as a priest in mission in a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada where equal marriage is affirmed. My usual Sunday worshiping home is in a Mennonite church which is moving in the same direction. My heart goes out to people who still have to make the case for this. My heart goes out to faithful lesbian and gay couples who have waited for years, and are still waiting. I completely understand those who decide to leave and go somewhere else, where… Read more »
Tim,
My hope and prayer is that nobody will leave a congregation because of LLF. I realise LLF has caused immense pain and loss to so many people.
Comments on this thread saying LGBT people can and should leave the Church of England are absolutely reprehensible.
The distress now faced by people should move us all. It is a time for compassion and grace and I continue to wish you and those you love every blessing.
Peter
What is happening to attendance in the Anglican Church of Canada as a matter of interest?
Tim – do remember this all comes down to numbers. Everything that is true is always successful, large and growing.
No, it is not about numbers. It is about people. That is what the numbers are counting. Do you want more people to know about Jesus?
I actually want more people to follow Jesus. Knowing about him is not enough. I want people to learn to see life as he sees it and live life as he teaches it. I’ve committed myself to this ministry for years, Ian. I don’t know why you would question this.
Tim, my response was to David, who appears to think that numbers of people following Jesus doesn’t matter.
My observation would be this: every single church which has changed its doctrine of marriage has shrunk. The only churches (denominations) in the West that are growing have stayed with the teaching of Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman.
I am not sure I have ever had a clear answer from a liberal on this as to how you make sense of it. The exception was Richard Coles, who said ‘I think it is a price worth paying’.
“marriage is between one man and one woman” is not the teaching of Jesus. Description of what the audience understood is not teaching something as normative.
In any case, no denomination has gone from growth to shrinkage as a result of accepting God’s blessing of same-sex love. Certainty and stridence are appealing, even when they are false. If growth in a church is in a false Gospel, lacking in love and “tying up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and laying them on others” it is not a growth in following Christ, any more than the Prosperity Gospel is of Christ.
So the question is, has the one caused the other? Or is it more likely to be, that conservative evangelical churches tend to be more intentional about evangelism, while more liberal churches do not? The real test would be, if an evangelical congregation that is doing evangelism on a regular basis changes its doctrine of marriage, does its attendance automatically go down? Or, to ask the question the other way around, are there inclusive evangelical congregations that are growing and flourishing? (I know of at least one that is: St. James and Emmanuel Church, Didsbury) And if there are, what… Read more »
My observation is this: every single church that has not changed its doctrine of marriage has been in serious, very long term decline.
As any scientist will tell you, correlation does not
prove causation. If you want to make this claim (as you do repeatedly), you need to do the work. There are probably innumerable variables for the decline of any particular denomination. It’s too convenient and, frankly, lazy to pin it on the greater acceptance of same sex relationships. Whilst this is undoubtedly a factor for some, the lack of greater acceptance will have turned away many others.
Thing is, numbers can tell you one aspect of what’s going on, but not why. Science 101, correlation is not causation. It’s way beyond what the data can show to decide that the decline of a denomination is caused by a particular attitude to any particular church controversy; it’s just not provable to point to churches in the Anglican communion that have adopted more progressive policies- Canada, ECUSA etc. and suggest that is what is causing their numerical decline. Take as an example the Church of England, which despite unwarranted excitement about ‘quiet revival’ (which remains entirely unproven as a… Read more »
If it is not about numbers then the size of congregations is not relevant when discussing conservative or inclusive views on sexuality in local churches.
It’s about numbers of people …
Reaching people is the primary challenge facing the CofE. I couldn’t care less if it goes out of existence, but I do care that disciples are made of all nations, including this one,
Re equal marriage, it is outrageous that doctrine has not been developed in a thoughtful, rigorous way. The result has been to waste a load of time, which we do not have the luxury to do, and to create ill will all round. We need principled, caring, creative, courageous and I believe truly conservative theology, not procedural wrangling.
You are mistaken aboiut equal marriage. It is not being proposed. It has not yet been debated at all. It was taken off the table at the beginning of LLF. So it is still waiting to happen in any formal sense — and that won’t be any time soon. That does not mean that marriage has not been debated and written extensively about elsewhere — it has. You seem to have missed this. But then you may not be aware that in the evangelical world conservative leaders of the historic national and local fellowship networks closed the door some years… Read more »
‘So it is still waiting to happen in any formal sense — and that won’t be any time soon.’ I know you’re talking about church weddings, David, but I feel I need to point out to everyone that equal marriage has in fact been the law of England for a few years now (and here in Canada for a little longer). So whether or not the C of E allows its clergy to officiate at such weddings, legally married gay and lesbian couples are going to turn up in church on Sundays. Are we going to treat them as sinners… Read more »
The good news Tim, having read in detail the Bishops statement, is that we have managed to hold to our church doctrine in the C of E. There will be no stand alone services of blessing and same sex clergy are not to enter into civil marriage and remain officiating. There will be much winging and gnashing of teeth but the rule of canon law reigns. If some cannot accept canon law they are free to set up their own organisation. All clergy take an oath when licensed and they should honour it. That said, we should always be open… Read more »
That is not good news to me, my family, and the many faithful Christian gay and lesbian people who have been longing for a different outcome. Personally, I would certainly support any who decide that enough is enough. In the mid-1990s, here in Canada, i met a gay couple who had been living in a committed and faithful relationship with each other for 25 years. At the time i was conservative on the issue, but the thought that these two men had begun this relationship in about 1970, knowing how society and the church felt about it in those days,… Read more »
This article is more than a year old now. I’m not sure if there has been any further information since then.
https://anglicanjournal.com/membership-decline-steepens/
In our diocese of Edmonton, Bishop Steve recently told us that about a third of our parishes are doing well, about a third are in trouble, and about a third are in serious trouble. Theological tradition does not seem to be a factor in this. St. John’s Edmonton and Good Shepherd, Edmonton are both doing well; one has an evangelical/charismatic tradition, the other progressive liberal catholic.
See Steve Hollinghurst’s latest piece on the Inclusive Evangelicals website.
https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/post/understanding-the-house-of-bishops-decisions
Forgive my ignorance. When it states “a proposal that clergy should be able to enter same-sex civil marriage” what does this mean in reality? Of course, anybody has a choice in the UK whether or not to enter a civil marriage, so long as they are not already married to someone else living. So saying they should be able to enter same sex marriage – they already can, the sentence is meaningless. Does it mean: any people who are in a same sex civil marriage may not be permitted to be considered for ordination any people who are in an… Read more »
‘If I were talking to a prospective ordination candidate, and they said they were in an opposite sex civil marriage, but had not had it blessed (?) in church, I would advise them to go and do the necessary and come back again later.’
Why? Are civil marriages not seen as real marriages in the Church of England? They certainly are in Canada. Here, ordination candidates are required to be baptized and confirmed, but there’s no requirement that their weddings were church ceremonies.
The Anglican Church in Canada, in my opinion, lost the plot some years back. A very good friend of mine took the decision to resign after many years both in the UK and Canada. Evidence has shown the Anglican Church in Canada withering on the vine. Are you able to dispute this observation?
So recognising civil marriages as valid is ‘losing the plot’?
Geoff, i have no interest in disputing the fact that our church is staring a very serious situation in the face. Indeed, we are facing it. Reports have been presented to our national church stating that the last Anglican will turn the lights out in 2040. ‘Lost the plot’? As I said on another thread, I think it would be truer to say that the plot has changed and we haven’t been good at responding to that change. Our church (like most Christendom denominations) is well-designed for a Christendom situation, in which most residents in a given geographical area are… Read more »
I think my comment was more along the realms of conjecture, and trying to understand the practical implications of phrases such as:
“a proposal that clergy should be able to enter same-sex civil marriage”
“If I were talking to a prospective ordination candidate, and they said they were in an opposite sex civil marriage, but had not had it blessed (?) in church, I would advise them to go and do the necessary and come back again later. Similar if they said they were in a partnership, I would say get engaged immediately and arrange for a church wedding.” None of this is required. Why would people in a partnership have to get engaged and married immediately? The partner might not be a life partner. And a candidate for ordination is not actually being… Read more »
“Reflect further on the legal and theological advice and explore what formal legislative process – such as an amending canon and measure – would be required before clergy could be permitted to be in a same sex civil marriage.” “Clergy same sex marriage – the legal advice to the House of Bishops explains that legislation would be needed to change the current position. The legislation would need to include a Measure (made by Synod and Parliament) as well as an amending Canon, both of which would require simple majorities in the three houses of Synod at final approval.” I see that most,… Read more »
As I understand it, the House of Bishops will work on a proposal at their December meeting and bring it to Synod in February. Let the power manoeuvres begin!
I think you assume incorrectly that a simple majority would suffice to get the same sex clergy measure through. Just as the stand alone blessing service measure fell , due to ignoring the requirement to publish the legal advice, the same sex clergy measure would certainly be called into question and it would be required, in all probability, to require the two thirds majority in each house to pass. In this case it will certainly not obtain that level of support in each house. Read Ian Paul’s recent examination of the Bishops statement last week. I am very grateful that… Read more »
Faced with this level of determined opposition, it’s nothing short of miraculous to me that gay people still hang around in the Church of England.
It is increasingly difficult to keep any faith in the institution, but, , for most people the Church of England is their local Parish church (for the moment at least until they’re Fresh Expressed out of existence) which are, by and large, LGBT friendly, because, by and large, they reflect the people of England who are, by and large, LGBT friendly. Which is why a lot of us still hang around. And despite great but by no means perfect progress in the secular world, LGBT people are still used to being maltreated in many and various ways in their lives… Read more »
I have gay and lesbian friends and family who have been hurt and suffered psychological harm from their experiences of church. I have no idea what “radical inclusion” is supposed to mean but blessing their marriages would be a small step in the right direction.
The Bishops now appear to have prioritised church unity over inclusion. I fear they will achieve neither.
Can I suggest that, while it’s not disputed that your gay and lesbian friends may have suffered “psychological “ problems and have been “hurt” by the experience of not changing the doctrine of the church to align with civil society, a great number of Anglican Church Christians have also been deeply disturbed by the recent LLF debacle. Loving and accepting people groups , including gays and lesbians, should of course be an accepted practice in our churches. However, blessing sin and practices that are ( and always have been) contrary to Gods plan for us is the reason canon law… Read more »
Claiming that you are hurt by the prospect of not all of the church endorsing your views and that this is somehow equivalent to the hurt experienced by those whose love and lifelong commitment to one another you label sin and assert are contrary to God’s plan is outrageous. It’s not a “victim card” to decry the actual discrimination and abuse meted out by the church to gay and lesbian Christians. It’s not a matter of “social trends”, it’s a recognition of past errors in attempting to limit the scope of God’s love, much like the lifting of the prohibition… Read more »
Alas we come to the crux of the matter Jo. My hurt is less than the hurt felt by those you seem to champion. In fact, you say, it’s outrageous that my hurt could be compared. There is little more to say on the subject other than go and read Canon B30. These are our Anglican tablets of stone. If you can accept the Canon our disagreement is resolved. If you refuse to accept ( especially if you are an ordained person)you are clearly at odds with our teaching and should consider if the C of E is for you.… Read more »
I am, thankfully, resident in this realm of Scotland and hence subject (in so far as a lay person is) to the canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church which does not share your “tablets of stone”. I notice, however, that right next to the canon B30 you consider holy writ, is canon B31, which was recently amended in line with English law raising the minimum age for marriage. The canons are rules made by the church and can be changed by the church. The canons command obedience from clergy, they do not and cannot forbid disagreement otherwise they could never… Read more »
Please do not put “hurt” in quotation marks. I assure you the hurt is real.
I think the difference between us is that where you see sin, I see love and I believe that love is of God.
I do not doubt that our hurts are real and painful. This has not been a one sided issue. You can be assured that Jesus loves you. Since coming to faith my theology has been that while we all receive Gods love, a love we don’t deserve. God doesn’t give us everything we want but it doesn’t diminish his love for us. I just cannot accept that changing our doctrine to support the LLF proposals would demonstrate Gods love any more than he already loves those who love and accept him. I very much regret the false hope the Bishops… Read more »