THE many “twists and turns” of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) journey that had led to its conclusion were the subject of a presentation on Tuesday afternoon from five bishops and the Dean of Bristol.
Introducing it, the Archbishop of York, who chairs the LLF programme board, said: “I know many of us would rather not be talking about LLF. I know many of you are feeling hurt, angry, confused, perhaps bitterly disappointed about where we are.”
The Church remained divided on these issues, and for that “I am deeply sorry,” Archbishop Cottrell said. But he hoped that this item would transparently explain how the LLF journey had come to this point — why the Bishops believed that this project had to conclude — but also to give thanks for the work of the people involved, and “the good things that have happened along the way.”
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Mandy Ford (Southern Deans), turned the clock back to 2017, when the Synod had voted not to take note of a previous House of Bishops paper on same-sex relationships — the product of years of “shared conversations” on sexuality. Because of this, the then Archbishops had launched a call for a “radical new Christian inclusion”, recognising how the Church had failed in its welcome to LGBTQ people. This had prompted the LLF programme, which had begun in 2018 with working groups to explore identity, sexuality, relationships, and marriage.
By 2021, the LLF book, course, and other resources had been produced, as well as “pastoral principles” to guide the Church in how to think and speak well about these issues, Dean Ford explained. Every diocese had also engaged in an LLF consultation, feeding into a next-steps group formed in 2022. By January 2023, the Bishops had been ready to issue the first draft of the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF), a service of blessing for same-sex couples, and also an apology to LGBTQ people.
The Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Pete Wilcox, explained how, in February 2023, the bishops had brought the PLF and an accompanying motion to the Synod.
“This has been hard but important work,” he told members. The motion lamented and repented harm caused to LGBT people, he said, and urged the Church to continue to learn together on the LLF journey. It also called for an end to the use of the document Issues in Human Sexuality, and affirmed that the PLF must not indicate any departure from the doctrine of marriage.
Later in 2023, the Bishops formally commended PLF for use during other services. But, even by then, division and concerns had been arising in the House of Bishops, he said.
Speaking next, the Interim Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley, said that the Bishops had considered a trial of stand-alone PLF services in late 2023. Early in 2024, they had brought together three groups focusing on pastoral guidance, pastoral “reassurance” for conservatives, and the stand-alone PLF. She praised the warm and pastoral nature of these working groups, as they had bridged deeply held differences to advocate for one another.
“People shifted from being slightly guarded and ready to defend their own views, to being open to new and unexpected friendships, and an acceptance of the integrity of different views,” Bishop Worsley said.
These working groups had met regularly across 2024 and 2025, exploring different avenues to implement the February 2023 Synod motion and subsequent motions. One area of work had looked into stand-alone PLF services, and what kind of reassurance would be required alongside them to keep opponents of the PLF in the C of E.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, spoke about the work of the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC), which, in early 2025, had published a series of papers looking at disagreement in the Church, conscience, and marriage doctrine. These culminated in a document establishing “nine theses” on what the Church had always believed marriage to be. The bishops of the FAOC had decided that the PLF did not characterise the relationship of any given couple as marriage, and, therefore, did not impinge on the doctrine of marriage. But the contexts in which the PLF were used could impinge on the doctrine, Dr Innes said.
Bishop Worsley reminded the Synod how it had voted overwhelmingly in July 2025 to end the use of Issues in the discernment process (instead using Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy). This had been a hopeful example of agreement, despite differences. “We want to be open to inspired ideas coming from any part of this Synod,” she said.
Dr Wilcox picked up the story, explaining that there was no real consensus among the Bishops about how gay clergy could be allowed to marry, let alone the legislative process to achieve this, or the provision for parishes finding themselves at odds with their bishops. Some believed that the implementation of the stand-alone PLF or relaxing discipline for gay married clergy by the bishop would require formal structures to protect their consciences, he said. “We remained divided.”
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe interim Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd Ruth Worsley
The Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, said that, around this time, he and Dr Wilcox had tried, as a thought experiment, to articulate where the House of Bishops had reached. They had begun to write a letter to the Church, and to find areas in which they were in agreement. A draft had then been presented to the House, with options on points for which he and Dr Wilcox could not come to a “common mind”. The Bishops had refined this letter over several meetings, before its publication in January as a statement from the House. Despite disagreements, the Bishops were united on many other areas, including apologising for mistakes that had been made.
Dr Wilcox said that the Bishops had received legal advice and three more theological papers from the FAOC. Dr Innes explained that the first paper had explored how the Church might see its doctrine develop over time, and argued that doctrine was defined by its relationship to the Bible, communally authorised by the Church. The second had explored the doctrine of marriage in the context of PLF, and concluded that symbolic actions around the standa-lone PLF could undermine that doctrine. The third paper had looked at clergy in same-sex civil marriages and asked what options might be available for ordaining and licensing them.
Dr Innes said that the FAOC offered no “simple answers”, but, instead, posed questions for the Bishops to ponder. “The work isn’t perfect, but is offered in the hope of resourcing more informed discussion and discernment,” he concluded.
The House of Bishops had met three more times to explore the final points of difference over the winter of 2025-26, Dr Croft said, and, over time, things had become clear. Introducing stand-alone PLF services would require a canonical synodical process, and allowing gay priests to marry would also need synodical approval. The Bishops also agreed to abandon any scheme for delegated episcopal ministry, as the changes made so far did not warrant such provision.
Summing up, Archbishop Cottrell said that the LLF team had succeeded in replacing Issues, and thanked members for helping the Bishops to bring this to a speedy conclusion. The Bishops had also refined and commended PLF for use in scheduled services, but they had discerned a distinction between this and their use in stand-alone servicesm which required fuller synodical authorisation under Canon B2. The Bishops had also decided that there was no need for a code of practice or pastoral reassurance, as things had not changed much on the ground.
“These have not been easy or straightforward things to make decisions on,” he said, and many areas had been left unresolved. But it was “healthy” to reflect on the things that had happened and had “made a difference”. He conceded that it might feel dispiriting to look back at the LLF journey.
“There have been twists and turns and unexpected dips: I don’t think many of us would choose to do LLF this way, given our time again.” But still, the Church had learned much about itself through the process.
“Yes, it has been hard, but it was always going to be hard. It is hard to fundamentally disagree with those whom we love,” Archbishop Cottrell said.
He praised the way in which the Church had learned to be more honest and “undefended” about its disagreements, and how to have difficult conversations face to face. He hoped that the forthcoming debate on the Thursday would carry these lessons learned into the future.
An opportunity for questions followed.
Opening these, Fiona MacMillan (London) asked about the adjustments to the wording — from “stand-alone” to “bespoke” services — and why it was felt appropriate.
The Revd Adam Gaunt (York) asked that, given the constructive, honest, and pragmatic nature of the Leicester working groups, how assurance could be given that the proposed Relationships, Sexuality, and Gender Working Group would learn from their experience and prove a worthy successor.
Similarly, Paul Ronson (Blackburn) asked whether there would be an equivalent working arrangement, “so that all those who partake in these discussions will act with integrity and honesty and not undermine the route and the travel of direction that is being set for the groups to do”.
Dr Wilcox said that he was not 100 per cent sure about the vocabulary shift from “stand-alone” to “bespoke”, but believed that the change was advocated by the Liturgical Commission, after feedback from a person who wished to make use of PLF.
Bishop Worsley emphasised the importance of seeing how the Synod could “do things better”, and to “hear one another and care for each other”. She hoped this practice would be taken forward, the working groups having been held in person, where members worshipped and ate together. She acknowledged that it took time to build confidence in one another, something that should be recognised when moving forward in any conversations, she said.
Archbishop Cottrell said that the working groups had worked well because they were residential. He emphasised the importance of praying together. “My heart always sinks a bit when it comes to prayers and the chamber sometimes empties.”
The Revd Jody Stowell (London) said that the LLF process had fallen far short of what had been intended, and asked how the Bishops would prevent further abuse and hurt for LGBTQ Christians in the next chapter of this work.
The Ven. Dr Adrian Youings (Bath & Wells) said that the presentation had been a “breezy and sanitised” version of the past three years, and asked whether “genuine” lessons were being learned behind closed doors. “I’ve not heard anything that tells me how we will do this better.”
The Archdeacon of Bolton and Salford, the Ven. Dr Rachel Mann (Manchester), asked how LLF could be said to have brought about a “radical, new Christian inclusion”.
Dr Croft responded to Ms Stowell by explaining that bishops should, in their dioceses, seek to mitigate the pain felt by LGBTQ Christians through careful listening and honesty. He hoped that all bishops had learned how to engage in this, and he particularly urged the establishment of LGBTQ chaplaincies. He admitted that there had been some “over-promising” and under-delivering throughout this process, and said that he was very careful about raising hopes for a future dialogue, and was trying to be more “sober” about it. He agreed with Dr Mann that the LLF process had not delivered a radical Christian inclusion, hence his more sober approach to the next phase.
Archbishop Cottrell told Dr Youings that the first lesson learned was to “see the face of Christ in one another”, to speak well of one other, even in disagreement. If that lesson could be absorbed by the Church, it could witness to a “polarised” world, he said. He also agreed with Dr Croft: “I think we over promised in the beginning.” A lot of time, but not enough, had been spent on considering what to bring forward to the Synod.
In 2023, it had quickly become clear that different bishops had “very different understandings” of what they were proposing in the PLF motion, and they had learned to be more honest about their disagreements. It was also vital to have the legal and theological advice “lined up and understood”, he said.
Gill Frigerio (Coventry) reflected on the changes of leadership over the course of this quinquennium for the LLF process, and asked the presenters to reflect on “the impact of some of the other things that happened during this period”.
The Dean of St Edmundsbury, the Very Revd Joe Hawes (Southern Deans), asked how the Bishops intended to avoid the disconnect of five years’ work that had been subsequently rejected, and what structures and levels of engagement they envisaged to prevent this in the next stage.
The Revd Robert Lawrance (Newcastle) said that there had been little acknowledgement of the lived experience of faithful LGBTQ people.
In terms of not including in the presentation all that had transpired, Dean Ford said that she had not wanted it to be any longer. She had a great desire for continuity. She said that, as every five years, 40 per cent of the Synod membership turns over, it was important to keep “the narrative going and holding the story”.
Dr Innes thanked Mr Lawrance for his question and for helping him to stay attentive to the need to include a diversity of voices. The Bishops had tried to be attentive “as far as we can” and “wherever we can achieve that”.
Bishop Worsley thanked Dean Hawes for his commitment to the working groups and sought to meet him privately to discuss what further engagement he envisaged. “How do we hear as many voices as possible while keeping that continuity of story and direction, as the whole people of God reflecting its beauty and diversity?”
The Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Revd Michael Ipgrave, who chairs the Liturgical Commission, said that the change in terminology from “stand-alone” to “bespoke” services had not been at the Commission’s request, contrary to what Dr Wilcox had said earlier.
Dr Angus Goudie (Durham) asked Dr Innes whether there were differences of opinion within the FAOC, as in the House of Bishops.
Julie Withers (Chester) asked whether the working group could include someone who had sought a stand-alone service of blessing for a same-sex relationship.
Dr Wilcox apologised for his error on the stand-alone/bespoke terminology and said that he would find out.
Dr Innes said that there were plenty of differences of opinion among the theologians on the FAOC and “robust discussions”. The group had aimed to produce a text that every member could stand behind, and, while he had begun the work sceptical about whether this would be possible, it had happened. Sometimes this had been achieved by having texts that argued multiple points of view. At other times, the FAOC found ways of expressing itself which everybody could sign up to. “In one way or another, we do embody unity in difference,” he said.
Archbishop Cottrell could not guarantee that a person seeking a stand-alone service would be on the working group, but that the group would be made up of people with a range of views on the issue.
Busola Sodeinde (London) acknowledged the positives of the presentation and asked at what point the Bishops would provide the pastoral difference in terms of having a separate space and differentiation in the ways people lived out the expression of this theology.
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) asked what threshold of evidence would trigger a safeguarding action and who would be accountable when a young person was harmed emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually by church processes.
The Revd Martin Davy (Oxford) said that the tone of the presentation had been one of “lament”. He asked whether the Synod should lead a form of repentance, not only for procedural mistakes, but for having come “perilously close to impinging on the doctrine of marriage itself”.
Archbishop Cottrell said that these questions were “deeply serious”. He responded that pastoral provision was proportionate to the change that was or was not made, and that continued to be the principle. Regarding young people and their mental health, he said: “We should do all that we can to minister to and prevent that happening.” He agreed that there had been a degree of lamentation and also “a degree of realism”, and was hopeful to explore other ways forward.
Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here